4 ms·

Voting should never jeopardize your career... the last thing you want with voting is to associate fear and possible job insecurity. You should be able to freely

• chii 2y ago
  Yep. Luckily, you can easily lie about who you voted for, and it's not possible to verify.
  • Etheryte 2y ago
    For now. We should never accept basic freedoms being sidelined like this just because there is another one that protects us — what if that one gets the same treatment.
    • chii 2y ago
      I mean, it's true, but at an individual level, if your boss (whether this is a gov't job or not) asked you who you voted for, you might need to somehow protect your own interests by not making someone with power over you antagonized. Of course, this should be made illegal - discrimination by political affiliation should be classified as illegal. But whether these laws are effective is another question.
      • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > discrimination by political affiliation should be classified as illegal Political affiliation is almost impossible to define. Voting records and party affiliations are not. It should be illegal to discriminate based on someone's voting record or party affiliation, and it should be illegal for the government to ask about it in the context of employment.
        • SauciestGNU 2y ago
          I was told by my city commission that it would be unlawful to screen our police for affiliation or sympathies with violent extremists like the oath keepers and proud boys. But I'm sure this is fine, it's only the federal civil service.
  • perihelions 2y ago
    The norm of democracy is government doesn't ask people who they voted for; not that people lie to the government about who they voted for. Wow, is the Overton Window shifting fast.
    • throwup238 2y ago
      The overton window has been at DEFCON Orange for years now.
    • richie_adler 2y ago
      It's redshifted already.
    • 13_9_7_7_5_18 2y ago
      [dead]
  • janice1999 2y ago
    As long as you didn't voice any ungood thoughts about Dear Leader anywhere... > whether they have made social media posts that could be considered incriminating by President-elect Donald Trump's team
  • kristianc 2y ago
    A good thing the parties don't have registered party affiliation lists they can x-verify the information against then. Of registered voters in the US, 47% have declared a party affiliation.
    • rightbyte 2y ago
      Is that one public? Like all these news articles that name which party someone is registered for would imply such.
      • pooper 2y ago
        Party affiliation is public information, at least in Virginia.
      • kristianc 2y ago
        In most states it's public. The Republicans would also have access to their own proprietary voter lists or databases, as well as publicly available voter registration records.
    • pjc50 2y ago
      Party affiliation isn't the same as voting, it's a weird thing where what would normally be a private members organization is nationalised somehow.
  • lawn 2y ago
    You think they would stop at not being able to verify it properly? They'll gladly fire you for "not being loyal enough" whatever the cause, for example like ever questioning the dear leader or refusing to do exactly as told.
  • Terr_ 2y ago
    Forcing victims to compromise themselves is part of the strategy. Even as a lie, it demoralizes them, binds them to your organization, and isolates them from one-another.
• carlosjobim 2y ago
  1. Presidents and other rulers will always put people who align with them politically in the important offices. Because that's what the people voted for. Anything else would be undemocratic. It's not about "job security". 2. Nobody can know who you voted for.
  • wiml 2y ago
    A good president isn't a "ruler"
    • carlosjobim 2y ago
      He should be, to the extent of his powers. That's the difference between having a democracy or a bureaucracy.
      • MattPalmer1086 2y ago
        No, the leader of a democratic nation should govern, not rule.
  • eesmith 2y ago
    The US switched from the spoils system to the civil service system because the voters did not want a system where rulers could always put people who align with them politically into non-political offices. The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act (passed in 1883) and subsequent laws were put into place democratically. To think otherwise is farcical. Guiteau took the spoils system pretty personally, as you might recall.
    • carlosjobim 2y ago
      The highest offices are political or should be considered so. Anything below a certain level should be treated as civil service.
      • eesmith 2y ago
        Is the current civil service system democratic? If so, why? The US Postmaster General is not appointed by the president. Is it a political office? Is it an important office? What about the Chair of the Federal Reserve? We have independent agencies of the United States government specifically to insulate them from presidential control. Is their existence undemocratic? Or are none of them important?
• Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
  Under authoritarians, voting is theatre where everyone under the leader are rubber stamps which approve whatever the authoritarian wants. If they don't they get removed. Currently we're seeing 'soft' removals where people are being fired, or reclassified and then fired. If nothing stops this track then in future (not sure how far out) we'll be hearing stories about officials 'falling out of windows' as so many of Putin's people have.
• blased 2y ago
  > Voting should never jeopardize your career... Weird how, as a conservative, I've never felt even remotely supported (for lack of a better word) at any of the numerous jobs I've had. In fact it's very clear that workplaces generally cater to liberals and it seems those people have no theory of mind regarding anyone but themselves.