I have given a little thought to the notion that it is better to elect legislative candidates that will serve in the majority. While the majority recently perverted workers compensation law, gutted the state of Alaska's retirement system, terminated the longevity bonus program for senior citizens, contracted out procurement costing the state additional money, while also eradicating municipal revenue sharing, I just had to wonder: We might ask ourselves if we think that these things were great pieces of legislation, and were they things we'd want our elected legislators to accomplish for us as part of this majority?
Sound off on the important issues at
My recent recollection is that it was the minority that brought attention to, spoke out and voted against those onerous acts perpetrated on the citizens of our state by this so-called venerable majority. Somehow, through those legislative acts and others, I fail to see the benefits for the populace and must conclude that it is not necessarily a good thing to be in the majority.
I also had to ask myself if being in the majority is so important, should that majority change, would those holding office in the former majority making this claim, step down from their positions in the interest of satisfying the importance of having someone serve in the new majority for their constituencies? Somehow I think not.