• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should public employees be allowed to vote?

Should public employees be allowed to vote?


  • Total voters
    54

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
34,774
Reaction score
12,160
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Should public employees be allowed to vote?

I sometimes ask myself this, and it seems so contrary to how things ought to be that I tend to dismiss it.

The question usually occurs when I encounter some event/story which highlights the potential and/or actual conflict of interest when employees or (in the case of public employee unions) groups of employees can elect their employers.


So I decided to put the question to you all: Should public employees be allowed to vote, and what rational supports your position?
 
Should public employees be allowed to vote, and what rational supports your position?
As citizens, of course they should.
 
Should public employees be allowed to vote?

I sometimes ask myself this, and it seems so contrary to how things ought to be that I tend to dismiss it.

The question usually occurs when I encounter some event/story which highlights the potential and/or actual conflict of interest when employees or (in the case of public employee unions) groups of employees can elect their employers.


So I decided to put the question to you all: Should public employees be allowed to vote, and what rational supports your position?

Is it a conflict of interest when public employees do it? What about when constituents do it? :D
 
Is it a conflict of interest when public employees do it? What about when constituents do it? :D
If a conflict of interest exists at all, I suspect it is most pronounced when a public employee union is involved.

A hypothetical example:

Two candidates running for a position in state government.
One candidate supports additional funding to X state agency.
The union employees of said agency belong to provides financial and other support to that candidate, and they end up winning.
They implement their policy, and the state agency in question grows, providing additional job opportunities and pay for it's employees.

Maybe I'm overthinking things, but I tend to see a slight conflict of interests in that.
 
Should public employees be allowed to vote?

No. Government employees are servants not the boss. It is perverted when they start acting like the boss.

When I was in the Marine Corps I never voted. That is the truth.

In my county we have 1,200 county employees. The highest vote getter in the Republican Primary got less than 5,000 votes. I bet you that all 1,200 of those county employees are Republicans. Does anybody see how this can be a huge problem?
 
Some people say that anyone receiving government money should not vote. Some people think it is a conflict of interest.
 
Is it a conflict of interest when public employees do it?

Yes because public employees are servants. Servants don't make demands. Servants serve. It's disgusting that government employees vote. They should be shot and hung (yes, both) for committing such a high crime.

Aunt Spiker said:
What about when constituents do it? :D

Then it's fine. The ultimate authority is 'we the people'. The people are the boss. It is completely appropriate that they have a say in government.
 
See, that's usually my internal response to the question.
I see you understand their being citizens is the rational that supports that position. :)


I realize that this may not come as a surprise coming from someone with the user name I have, but the two are in no way connected.
I have always had a problem with Law Enforcement advocating/lobbying for crime laws.
As they are there to enforce the laws on the books, not come up with more things to criminalize or rights to infringe upon.

On one hand, it just seems to be one big conflict of interest that should be disallowed. But on the other, those individual citizens have a right to advocate on their own and in groups for any changes they want.
So I default to the individuals right over that which I think to be wrong.
 
As citizens, of course they should.

I wonder what they will demand. Do you think they will demand a functional government that serves the people? Can government employees be fired? If not, why should they be allowed to fire their bosses?

It makes very little sense.
 
I wonder what they will demand. Do you think they will demand a functional government that serves the people? Can government employees be fired? If not, why should they be allowed to fire their bosses?

It makes very little sense.
I find your position to be perplexing and nonsensical.
:shrug: Maybe it is just the way you presented it. :shrug:
 
Yes because public employees are servants. Servants don't make demands. Servants serve. It's disgusting that government employees vote. They should be shot and hung (yes, both) for committing such a high crime.



Then it's fine. The ultimate authority is 'we the people'. The people are the boss. It is completely appropriate that they have a say in government.

Are you serious?

You are saying that a bureaucrat or a soldier should be killed for voting?

If you are, that is the most ridiculous thing I recall reading on here in a long time...if ever.
 
I see you understand their being citizens is the rational that supports that position. :)


I realize that this may not come as a surprise coming from someone with the user name I have, but the two are in no way connected.
I have always had a problem with Law Enforcement advocating/lobbying for crime laws.
As they are there to enforce the laws on the books, not come up with more things to criminalize or rights to infringe upon.

On one hand, it just seems to be one big conflict of interest that should be disallowed. But on the other, those individual citizens have a right to advocate on their own and in groups for any changes they want.
So I default to the individuals right over that which I think to be wrong.
I would tend to agree.

Yet.

I see a conflict between the rights of individuals not employed by the public sector, and those who are.

Since, effectively, public sector employees have (especially in a collective sense) more influence than private sector employees.


Perhaps the problem does not lie with public sector employees, but rather with oversized unions?
 
Yes because public employees are servants. Servants don't make demands. Servants serve. It's disgusting that government employees vote. They should be shot and hung (yes, both) for committing such a high crime.



Then it's fine. The ultimate authority is 'we the people'. The people are the boss. It is completely appropriate that they have a say in government.
It never ceases to amuse me that republicons are constantly searching for a reason to keep Americans from voting.
BTW ...you do understand that Public Servant does not mean the same as slave servant ...don't you?
 
Some people say that anyone receiving government money should not vote. Some people think it is a conflict of interest.
WTF? What about the CEOs of big business who receive government subsides ...or farmers who get the same... What about politicians and their families? Or military personnel?
Should they all be banned from the polls as well?
 
So they have a vested interest in who wins. It's the nature of representative government that everyone has a vested interest in who wins.
 
WTF? What about the CEOs of big business who receive government subsides ...or farmers who get the same... [...] Or military personnel?
Those arguments always fail, as those supposed subsidies benefit society as a whole, where as subsidies to individuals do not.
 
By your logic, every one with an interest in a candidate would not be allowed to vote.

So that leaves WHO left over?

RIch cant vote
Public employees cant vote
Corps cant vote..........
 
If a conflict of interest exists at all, I suspect it is most pronounced when a public employee union is involved.

A hypothetical example:

Two candidates running for a position in state government.
One candidate supports additional funding to X state agency.
The union employees of said agency belong to provides financial and other support to that candidate, and they end up winning.
They implement their policy, and the state agency in question grows, providing additional job opportunities and pay for it's employees.

Maybe I'm overthinking things, but I tend to see a slight conflict of interests in that.



Everyone should have the right to vote, including ex felons..
 
I view voting as a privilege and not a right, and so I believe conditions ought to be in place to ensure our government is run as effectively as possible.

I think there ought to be certain education standards that need to be met in order to vote. I think the age limit needs to be raised from 18 to 30. I think one ought to be employed in order to vote.

However, I would not exclude public employees from voting. Nothing about them being public employees incapacitates them from understanding politics or voting with a sound mind.
 
As long as X is an adult citizen, the first answer to any question "Should X be allowed to vote?" is YES. The second answer, depending on the context of the question, should almost always be either profanity or violence against anyone that answered NO.

edit: Of course, there is a conflict of interest with public employees' unions. The issue there, is that public employees should not be allowed to unionize in the first place; they can engage in their collective bargaining at the ballot box. It'd be like a private corporation having an "shareholders' union".
 
I view voting as a privilege and not a right, and so I believe conditions ought to be in place to ensure our government is run as effectively as possible.

I think there ought to be certain education standards that need to be met in order to vote. I think the age limit needs to be raised from 18 to 30. I think one ought to be employed in order to vote.

However, I would not exclude public employees from voting. Nothing about them being public employees incapacitates them from understanding politics or voting with a sound mind.
WOW!:wow:
 
If a conflict of interest exists at all, I suspect it is most pronounced when a public employee union is involved.

A hypothetical example:

Two candidates running for a position in state government.
One candidate supports additional funding to X state agency.
The union employees of said agency belong to provides financial and other support to that candidate, and they end up winning.
They implement their policy, and the state agency in question grows, providing additional job opportunities and pay for it's employees.

Maybe I'm overthinking things, but I tend to see a slight conflict of interests in that.

They should be allowed to vote because their interests, in which case may be better funding for whatever deparment they work in, should be represented as much as they can be.

Also, the principle is at stake. Do you allow for universal voting or not? If you do, then there is no debate to be had because the principle is all important. Everyone who is a citizen gets to vote.

If not, and you break universal voting to be non-public officials voting where do you draw the line? Public officials, fine, they're the first to go. Then what? How about highschool dropouts because lets face it, they'll never be smart enough to make an informed decision. Fine, get them out of the way too. Then get rid of those who are unemployed because lets face it, they'll only vote for the people who give them more unemployment benefit. Fine, get rid of them too from the electoral process. So one by one you get rid of the easily undesirable groups... then the more not so undesirable but you can still scrap them, like students. Sure, why should students vote? All they'll vote for is whoever promises them goodies. etc.

Where do you draw the line? Well you draw it when you can't sell the rhetoric anymore.

No, we either stand on principle or we don't. You don't bend democracy to the whims of one group or another because it hurts all.
 
WOW!:wow:

We assume that voting is a right, but on what grounds do we make that assumption?

I'd like to challenge that paradigm a little. Voting rights for all either supposes that all are capable of making equally sound decisions, which is false, or it prioritizes the impact of the results of a given vote to a lesser extent than it prioritizes the simple ideal of allowing everyone to vote, which is foolhardy and poor management.

Either way, I don't see the net benefit to society at large.
 
Last edited:
As long as X is an adult citizen, the first answer to any question "Should X be allowed to vote?" is YES. The second answer, depending on the context of the question, should almost always be either profanity or violence against anyone that answered NO.

edit: Of course, there is a conflict of interest with public employees' unions. The issue there, is that public employees should not be allowed to unionize in the first place; they can engage in their collective bargaining at the ballot box. It'd be like a private corporation having an "shareholders' union".
Perhaps I should have asked that question instead.

Interesting to see what responses this one has generated though.
 
Back
Top Bottom