Modest proposal for electoral reform
The dextrosphere has been abuzz about the Democrat's idea that unionization should not be subject to a secret ballot, but that petition signatures should be sufficient. They point out that this is self-serving for the 'Crats (it is), and that the net result would be more unions, because employees who would be intimidated into signing the union petition could not then secretly vote against the union. And such intimidation does happen, as my wife (who is anything but a shrinking violet) can tell you.
It seems to me that the Right is taking the wrong tack on this. They should be taking the principle involved in this and feeding it back to them good and hard. What the Democrats are saying is that secret ballots are unnecessary. Well, if that's the case, why are we spending so much money on fancy voting equipment? Why don't we just make each person's ballot a matter of public record? After all, if you think it's moral to loot your neighbor, then you should be proud of that. And since intimidation doesn't matter, when you vote for a law or a candidate who harms a particular industry, it should be perfectly OK for a company in that industry to lose your resume after checking the voting records. If all Americans are responsible for all other Americans, shouldn't all Americans be accountable to all other Americans? No more of this "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" If we're paying attention, I can guarantee that public policy will do a 180 in a libertarian direction.
Comments