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 vote for anyone without any consequences.
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.
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.
> whether they have made social media posts that could be considered incriminating by President-elect Donald Trump's team
Wow, is the Overton Window shifting fast.
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.
2. Nobody can know who you voted for.
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.
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?
However the banks are the owners of the nations and of the population, so it's rather they who would control who is president or king rather than the other way around. As history has shown about three thousand times.
> We have independent agencies of the United States government specifically to insulate them from presidential control.
That's the separation of powers. However, within the executive branch, where the president constitutionally has power, it is only reasonable that he will politically appoint the highest offices. Otherwise he cannot execute the policy that voters have obliged him to.
"where the president constitutionally has power"
What a vacuous statement, trivially true.
This thread concerns civil servants, some of which are in important positions.
Are we talking past each other with different meanings? Any organisation where voters don't have a say is undemocratic. That doesn't mean I put any value in it, it is just what it is according to the definition of the word.
This control is indirect. The Postmaster General is selected and appointed by the Board of Governors of the Postal Service.
The members of the Board of Governors is appointed by the president, with a seven year term. No more than 5 of the 9 governors may be from the same party. The president cannot fire or force a governor to resign.
This is far different than what you want, which is to have the president be able to replace anyone in an important position.
If you want everyone to vote for everything, move to Switzerland where there is a direct democracy.
If you want the president to be able to replace anyone in an important position, move to some place with a dictatorship.
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.