• 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
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.
So if we can't use limits on who can vote to limit the harm groups cause by bending democracy to their whims, what recourse do we have?
 
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?

I do. Just as those that are on Public Assistance or get EIC in their tax refund shouldn't be able to vote either, because I bet they are all Democrats so they can vote themselves more money.

See the problem in that logic when taken to the logical conclusion? The problem is both your statement and mine are couched in a lot of truth. However, this is the US, and every citizen has the right to vote. As it should be.
 
So if we can't use limits on who can vote to limit the harm groups cause by bending democracy to their whims, what recourse do we have?

You set up a principle that works and you keep with it.
Universal voting rigths is a good principle. There is no recourse or any reason to change it.
 
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.

That sounds exactly like everyone else voting for a candidate that represents their interests.

Some people say that anyone receiving government money should not vote. Some people think it is a conflict of interest.

Clearly people who live in states that receive more tax money than they pay shouldn't vote either. That's the same conflict of interest. That makes sense, right?

These sorts of issues are almost always Republicans looking for ways to stop Democrats from voting.

Those arguments always fail, as those supposed subsidies benefit society as a whole, where as subsidies to individuals do not.

Of course they do. The fewer people who are living in desperate poverty, the better the nation. The more educated the population as a whole, the better the nation. The healthier the population as a whole, the better the nation. Seriously, this is not hard.

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.

The constitution disagrees with you. And how exactly do you justify preventing students and the elderly from voting? Or freelance workers who work for themselves? They're not employed, and one need only declare themselves in business to be in business as a sole proprietor. So, you're disallowing a lot of people from voting and allowing businesses to become gatekeepers of voting. That's actually kind of fascist, and not in line with American ideals at all. The poorest among us need the most representation, not the least.

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.

Spot on!

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".

Utter nonsense. Everyone has the right to associate and form an organization to protect their interests.

So if we can't use limits on who can vote to limit the harm groups cause by bending democracy to their whims, what recourse do we have?

Outvoting them.

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.

The constitution often makes explicit references to the right to vote.
 
Of course they do. The fewer people who are living in desperate poverty, the better the nation. The more educated the population as a whole, the better the nation. The healthier the population as a whole, the better the nation. Seriously, this is not hard.
Yes this is not hard. So all you are attempting to do is to confound.
Those supposed subsidies benefit society as a whole, where as subsidies to individuals do not.
Subsides to individuals benefits the individual far more than it benefits society.

What you are talking about things that should be earned by the individual, not given to them simply because they are alive.
Which is where the major difference exists.
 
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?

of course. so should people on welfare, SS, or those who are employed by corporations.

the truth is that we ALL reap benefits from being members of a society. some of us bitch about economic inequality. some of us bitch about paying the bill. but we all get a vote, as it should be.
 
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.

So politicians can jump in bed with corporations and sell political favors but voting is disgusting treason? Our politics are dirty because of the former, not because they exercised their constitutional right to vote.
So if we can't use limits on who can vote to limit the harm groups cause by bending democracy to their whims, what recourse do we have?

Maybe we should focus first on getting corporations and their money out of our politics. People using their constitutional rights is not a threat to democracy but corporations buying politicians like cigarettes sure as **** is.
 
Last edited:
That sounds exactly like everyone else voting for a candidate that represents their interests.



Clearly people who live in states that receive more tax money than they pay shouldn't vote either. That's the same conflict of interest. That makes sense, right?

These sorts of issues are almost always Republicans looking for ways to stop Democrats from voting.



Of course they do. The fewer people who are living in desperate poverty, the better the nation. The more educated the population as a whole, the better the nation. The healthier the population as a whole, the better the nation. Seriously, this is not hard.



The constitution disagrees with you. And how exactly do you justify preventing students and the elderly from voting? Or freelance workers who work for themselves? They're not employed, and one need only declare themselves in business to be in business as a sole proprietor. So, you're disallowing a lot of people from voting and allowing businesses to become gatekeepers of voting. That's actually kind of fascist, and not in line with American ideals at all. The poorest among us need the most representation, not the least.



Spot on!



Utter nonsense. Everyone has the right to associate and form an organization to protect their interests.



Outvoting them.



The constitution often makes explicit references to the right to vote.

1. It doesn't matter what the constitution says. I'm discussing the merits of allowing everyone to vote, not the legality of it.

2. Your objections about small business owners are noted and valid, but those are merely details to be ironed out. Anyone who owns a business that employs at least 1 person should be able to register to vote.

3. I never said the elderly should be excluded from voting. Students, if they're under the age of 30, don't have enough life experience to make informed decisions - a requirement since the decisions made in a democracy affect us all.
 
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.
WOW! :wow:
 
I can see the point of having universal voting - without it, arguments could be made for eliminating the right to vote for one group or another...and WOULD be made, I don't doubt. We humans are flighty mfers.
 
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?

Not a thing you said make a bit of sense. When you were in the Marines, you CHOSE not to vote; you weren't prevented. And how do know the political lean of those 1200 county employees? You don't, and that's a fact.
 
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.

You've lost it, what country are you from?
 
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?

You and your cohort "likers" couldn't be further from the truth. Just because V puts out crazy ****, doesn't speak for the rest of us.
 
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?

Maybe they believe poll workers too? just sayin'.....
 
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.

so anyone with a potential government contract shouldn't vote. Then of course anyone who sells hotdogs near any Federal building shouldn't vote because one candidate might be a vegetarian...then what?
 
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?

As citizens, of course.

Where I live the problem is different. Here the laws surrounding public employment are such that the proportion of people in Parliaments that are public employees or are employed by similar organizations has a majority of the seats. As the circumstances under which public employees live (criteria for advancement, job security, large pensions) they constitute a well defined socioeconomic group with largely homogeneous personal interests. As teachers, police, judges, professors all belong to this group there are massive conflicts of interest. The Legislative chooses the Executive from among its leaders and the Judiciary is part of the socioeconomic group. This has created an unintended slant in policy as there is factually no impartial control mechanism.
 
Yes, they should be allowed to vote. You don't give up your citizenship when you become an employee of Uncle Sam or your state.
 
Unless we are proposing to turn public employees into serfs, I think we should just let them vote like everyone else.

As for the former Marine who chose not to vote while in service, perhaps they should continue to avoid voting.
 
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?

If the logic is followed to its conclusion, then yes. Anyone sucking on the government teat.
Which is why I wonder when some people say that citizens on welfare should not have the vote because ' they will always vote themselves more money'. It is no different from a defense contractor voting themselves more money or worse bribing (aka through unlimited and undeclared political contributions) politicians to get 'their share' of the corporate welfare teat.

I find this to be completely asinine.
 
Clearly people who live in states that receive more tax money than they pay shouldn't vote either. That's the same conflict of interest. That makes sense, right?

These sorts of issues are almost always Republicans looking for ways to stop Democrats from voting.

all to true.
 
In a time where Congress can vote for pay raises for their own, I don't see how this is an issue.
 
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?

I accidentally hit no, but I say yes. :)


My mom works in a county position and she is on my ass to vote for her boss and I can only imagine how worse it would get if she couldn't vote and there would be one less vote.
 
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?

Yes. They are citizens.

While who they vote for may affect their lives, the same goes for all individuals. Should the elderly not be able to vote because they recieve social security and medicare? Should members of the military not be allowed a vote because they can elect their commander in chief? Should veterans not be allowed to vote because they recieve veteran benefits?

No one votes without some potential impact from those who they're voting for.
 
Yes. They are citizens.

While who they vote for may affect their lives, the same goes for all individuals. Should the elderly not be able to vote because they recieve social security and medicare? Should members of the military not be allowed a vote because they can elect their commander in chief? Should veterans not be allowed to vote because they recieve veteran benefits?

No one votes without some potential impact from those who they're voting for.

true, I was a public employee for more than 20 years. The head of the office was presidentially appointed. About half the office voted GOP, about half Dem though suspect nationally the Dems got more votes because they were perceived as being more generous with salaries etc. I will note that the two best office heads I served under were Dem appointees but so was the worst. The GOP appointees were OK but the one before I came was widely considered the best ever.

No one to the best of my knowledge voted on the presidential ballot based on who might be head of our office
 
Back
Top Bottom