Have you read Wheel Of Fortune host Pat Sajak’s blog post for National Review Online today? Because if you have, you might be saying: “I’d like to buy a W, T, and an F please, Pat.”
That’s because Sajak asks that question that’s been on no one’s mind: “Should state workers be able to vote in state elections on matters that would benefit them directly?”
In what appears to be his first post, Sajak pointed out today that no one in his family, or even his “kids’ teachers or the guys who rotate my tires” is allowed to appear on his show, because there is at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. “In nearly all private and public endeavors,” he continues, “there are occasions in which it’s only fair and correct that a person or group be barred from participating because that party could directly and unevenly benefit from decisions made and policies adopted.”
So, he asks, what about those state employees who have a greater stake in a vote’s outcome than the rest of us?
“I’m not suggesting that public employees should be denied the right to vote, but that there are certain cases in which their stake in the matter may be too great,” Sajak writes.
Of course we all have a stake in one way or another in most elections, and many of us tend to vote in favor of our own interests. However, if, for example, a ballot initiative appears that might cap the benefits of a certain group of state workers, should those workers be able to vote on the matter? Plainly, their interests as direct recipients of the benefits are far greater than the interests of others whose taxes support such benefits.
Read the whole post here.
