3 ms·
A lack of secret ballot could easily be challenged by businesses that threaten or have 'layoffs' for those candidates or positions that workers vote for. I'm n
by TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
A lack of secret ballot could easily be challenged by businesses that threaten or have 'layoffs' for those candidates or positions that workers vote for.
I'm not as worried about the mob showing up and telling me 'vote this way or Jimmy here will say hi', but instead "candidate X will benefit your job. We're not sure you'll have your position if he's not voted in"
- shawn-butler 14y agoThere have been a few high-profile reports in this election cycle of people threatening layoffs with a secret ballot. They tinge it with, if these policies are enacted we will cut hours, not hire, etc to hedge. The Papa Johns CEO was fairly candid, I also think I read of a coal mine announcing layoffs the day after the election, etc. I'm fairly certain it is a violation of most state civil right laws and probably explicit state constitutional guarantees to discriminate in employment on the basis of political affiliation just as it is race, gender, etc. I know it is in the state in which I reside. So I think this is a red-herring.
- makomk 14y agoThe mere fact of it being illegal didn't stop it from happening...
- shawn-butler 14y agoThe salient point being that having a "secret" ballot has not stopped it from happening either. My employer can easily verify if they choose if I have donated to the "correct" candidate already and rampant job discrimination seems not to occur in a significant amount. So, one has to balance the risk of someone acting illegally in either case to discriminate against/coerce versus the increase in voter participation that would naturally occur in having online voting that was verifiable. I think it's an easy case to make, but perhaps I'm overlooking something.