Pat Sajak, normally restricted to repeating letter choices and saying "oooohh" when contestants' guesses go wrong on Wheel of Fortune, is speaking out about state and federal workers' rights to vote.
In short: He's against it.
Citing the same conflict of interest rules that prevent his own family from competing on Wheel, Sajak writes in the National Review that public employees might benefit directly if the person they vote for wins. And, since nobody would want themselves to benefit from the candidate of their choice getting into office, clearly that's wrong.
But Ed Grimley's favorite celebrity is a step ahead of that argument, you betcha. "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?"
Hmm. I'm going to say "Yes?"
"In nearly all private and public endeavors, there are occasions in which itâ€™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," Sajak writes. "So should state workers be able to vote in state elections on matters that would benefit them directly? The same question goes for federal workers in federal elections."
So you want to deny them the right to vote, is that it, Patty S.?
"I'm not suggesting that public employees should be denied the right to vote [AHA!], but that there are certain cases in which their stake in the matter may be too great (AH -- wait, what?].
Obviously the man with the ever-growing forehead has given a lot of thought to this matter, though whether even he knows what his opinion is remains somewhat unclear.
Should a motion to deny the vote to people who've been hosting the same game show for 27 years ever show up on my ballot, however, I know which way I'm voting.