Skip to content

Moral Authority

May 3, 2012

Speaking of debt, here’s something I think is quite disgusting and frankly, I wonder if it should be legal. 

In the election in which I was elected, less than 4% of the eligible voters turned out to vote.  I won my seat with a majority of those votes, though not by a huge margin.  That means that only about 2% of the voters could be said to support my positions. 

Is it morally tenable that an opinion held by only 2% of the eligible voters would provide the ability to sign up the other 98% of the voters with $12 million in debt?  Frankly, I find this reprehensible.

Opponents of this moral objection might correctly point out that the other 96% had the opportunity to vote and thus the opportunity to impose their will upon the outcome.  They would argue that that potential for involvement is sufficient justification for the imposition of the debt on the rest of the voters.

I would counter that, on City Council, we have a requirement for a quorum of councilmembers before a vote can be binding.  I believe there is a need for a quorum of voters to approve a debt issue for a GO and a quorum of voters should be required to have participated in an election for a CO to be binding.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: