Which offices should be publicly elected offices?

[blahface]

I don't like the idea of electing the Secretary of State, Treasurer, Attorney General, etc. I especially don't like electing judges. A lot of people don't even know enough to make informed decisions about electing governors or representatives; how can we expect them to make any sort of judgment on these more specific offices that nobody really pays attention to?

I think we should only elect people to write legislation or people who make decisions on who gets appointed to executive positions. On the latter part, I don't just mean the Governor or President. I wouldn't mind taking away the power of the upper house to write legislation and replace it with more executive power in which they elect candidates that the Governor/President would normally just appoint with the upper house's approval. The election process would have to be structured fairly though to ensure it is a centrist candidate that can win. We don't want the winner to just be the majority of the majority.

[Elheru Aran]

The idea of electing positions, at least on a local level, is so that people can choose candidates that they are more familiar with. A legislature might not be aware of the concerns and needs specific to a locality. By these positions I mean mayor, city council, sheriffs, and so forth. Allowing these positions to be appointed creates too much potential for nepotism and stacking the deck.

That said, I agree that judges should not be elected. Having to campaign removes any political neutrality that a judge could have.

The fact of the matter though is that each state does things differently. IIRC some states appoint judges, other states elect them. In some states the governor appoints the Sec of State, in others they're elected... that's how the system of government that we have in the US works. What you are proposing would be increasing the power of the federal government to a degree that may be unacceptable as it would be imposing a universal system upon each state. Would it be ideal? I don't know, it would probably be a little easier if each state had the same system, but as things stand, it's highly unlikely such a thing could be pulled off.

[blahface]

The idea of electing positions, at least on a local level, is so that people can choose candidates that they are more familiar with. A legislature might not be aware of the concerns and needs specific to a locality. By these positions I mean mayor, city council, sheriffs, and so forth. Allowing these positions to be appointed creates too much potential for nepotism and stacking the deck.

That said, I agree that judges should not be elected. Having to campaign removes any political neutrality that a judge could have.

The fact of the matter though is that each state does things differently. IIRC some states appoint judges, other states elect them. In some states the governor appoints the Sec of State, in others they're elected... that's how the system of government that we have in the US works. What you are proposing would be increasing the power of the federal government to a degree that may be unacceptable as it would be imposing a universal system upon each state. Would it be ideal? I don't know, it would probably be a little easier if each state had the same system, but as things stand, it's highly unlikely such a thing could be pulled off.

I'm not saying that the federal government should mandate this on the states. I'm just saying that states should work this way. And I definitely wasn't saying that the upper houses of states should hand select local officials. For that, I still wouldn't want them to be elected by popular vote, but I would want them to be elected by the mayor and the city council who I do want to be elected by popular vote.

Also for city council, I would want a delegate voting form of proportional representation. All candidates run on one ballot and each voter would pick a candidate. All candidates would be able to donate any portion of his/her votes to any another candidate. The top X candidates with the most votes would win. So, in a city council race in which there are 10 seats and 25000 voters, a candidate would need 2273 votes to guarantee a seat on the council. If a candidate got 2800 votes, he would be able distribute his surplus 228 votes to whoever he wished.

[Elheru Aran]

See, if you want the states to work this way, you basically have to tell them to do so. Who can tell them? The federal government. You can't get away from that. It's either a Constitutional amendment, where IIRC 2/3's or 3/4's (can't remember which) of the states have to approve it via referendum or the Congress passes it and the states ratify it (not that Congress could ever pass anything these past few years or the next couple), or the states themselves independently decide to adopt the same practice (also highly unlikely).

The delegate voting thing is, IMO, a bit too likely to encourage nepotistic politics. A Republican gets elected, you think he's going to give any surplus votes to a Democrat (or vice versa) so things will be balanced? No. Of course they're not going to put it that way, but that's how it's going to go.

[blahface]

See, if you want the states to work this way, you basically have to tell them to do so. Who can tell them? The federal government. You can't get away from that. It's either a Constitutional amendment, where IIRC 2/3's or 3/4's (can't remember which) of the states have to approve it via referendum or the Congress passes it and the states ratify it (not that Congress could ever pass anything these past few years or the next couple), or the states themselves independently decide to adopt the same practice (also highly unlikely).

The delegate voting thing is, IMO, a bit too likely to encourage nepotistic politics. A Republican gets elected, you think he's going to give any surplus votes to a Democrat (or vice versa) so things will be balanced? No. Of course they're not going to put it that way, but that's how it's going to go.

You'd only need a constitutional amendment for it to be implemented federally. It would be much easier to get it passed state by state. I'm just speaking hypothetically of how I think it should be done though. I don't expect this to be implemented any time soon (although Cambridge has a somewhat similar system that uses STV).

I don't expect a Republican to give surplus votes to a Democrat, but that isn't really the point. The point is to implement a form of proportional representation in which people from the community could vote for people whom they know and trust and they don't have to be knowledgeable of every little detail of the city. They also wouldn't have to worry too much about wasting their vote because if their guy doesn't make it, he can just donate his votes to someone else. I don't know why it would necessarily lead to nepotism.

[Guardsman Bass]

None of the judge offices or attorney offices should be elected, especially since there's some evidence that elected judges can be skewed in their resulting judgments if a lot of money is being thrown around in judicial elections (which is increasingly the case for some of them). The US does fine with judges selected by the President and appointed by the Senate in the federal court system, so there's no reason the state courts couldn't do the same thing with the Governor and state legislatures.

Changing elections for state judges might not even be relatively difficult, since you'd only have to do it at the state level. It's not like most people know who any of the judges who come up on the ballot for retention are anyways, and a bunch of states allow for referendums to change the law.

[GuppyShark]

It baffles me that any element of the judicial system - the courts, the police, the prosecutor's office - should be elected. These roles should be filled by career professionals not career politicians.

[Ralin]

It baffles me that any element of the judicial system - the courts, the police, the prosecutor's office - should be elected. These roles should be filled by career professionals not career politicians.

Theoretically it serves to give the public one more way to rein in over or under-zealous prosecutors or judges who act against the public welfare or to tell police chiefs that the public would appreciate having fewer families wake up to their front doors being kicked in on an no-knock warrant for imaginary drugs or whatever.

The potential for abuse is obvious, but hey, that's democracy in general for you. Having them as appointees could just kick the same problem up to the elected officials in charge of appointing them.

[Irbis]

Theoretically it serves to give the public one more way to rein in over or under-zealous prosecutors or judges who act against the public welfare or to tell police chiefs that the public would appreciate having fewer families wake up to their front doors being kicked in on an no-knock warrant for imaginary drugs or whatever.

The potential for abuse is obvious, but hey, that's democracy in general for you. Having them as appointees could just kick the same problem up to the elected officials in charge of appointing them.

And what exactly the problem with elected officials being responsible for that would be?

I mean, on one hand, you have independent professional who doesn't need to campaign and actually has skills needed for job, on the other, someone who wins on looks and fast talking, not on being in any way competent. Tough choice, eh?

Doubly so with USA having frankly stupid precedent system where any corporation can buy themselves a judge in Bumfuckingstan, Nowhere, and just can tell him to rule a few times like they want on some new legal issue and they're now golden in whole country.

[Tsyroc]

During this last election I voted on whether quite a few state and local judges should be retained in office.

IIRC they are appointed to their position but the voters have the power to remove them, which is pretty difficult because most voters don't bother to do even a little bit of research about judges and who is going to spend money to advertise about the ones who should be removed.

[Raw Shark]

During this last election I voted on whether quite a few state and local judges should be retained in office.

IIRC they are appointed to their position but the voters have the power to remove them, which is pretty difficult because most voters don't bother to do even a little bit of research about judges and who is going to spend money to advertise about the ones who should be removed.

This is exactly the case in Colorado also: they're appointed but voters can remove them. I tried to research them all, but below the level of the State Supreme Court there was virtually no information online that I could find in the amount of time I was willing to devote to this (ie: half an afternoon), so I voted to retain the one that seemed cool based on her record, voted against the other one because he's a registered Republican, and left the rest alone (except for this one guy from the lower courts called John Madden, because really? John Madden? Just fuck right off. Okay, that was a little capricious of me, but I mostly voted responsibly, honest...)

[PKRudeBoy]

Doubly so with USA having frankly stupid precedent system where any corporation can buy themselves a judge in Bumfuckingstan, Nowhere, and just can tell him to rule a few times like they want on some new legal issue and they're now golden in whole country.

Precedent in the US doesn't work anything like that. Decisions from lower courts do not set binding precedent, and I don't think any of the appeals courts or federal courts are elected. Plus, precedents are only binding in that state for state courts or that circuit for federal courts.

[PKRudeBoy]

Ghetto edit: Well fuck, the South has to go and prove me wrong about no one being stupid enough to elect their supreme courts.

[Coop D'etat]

Doubly so with USA having frankly stupid precedent system where any corporation can buy themselves a judge in Bumfuckingstan, Nowhere, and just can tell him to rule a few times like they want on some new legal issue and they're now golden in whole country.

Precedent in the US doesn't work anything like that. Decisions from lower courts do not set binding precedent, and I don't think any of the appeals courts or federal courts are elected. Plus, precedents are only binding in that state for state courts or that circuit for federal courts.

Hell, binding precedent doesn't even work that way. If there is a binding precedent that a judge thinks is obviously unjust they have the discretion to distinguish it from the facts of the case before them or to just ignore it. This is particularly the case for a precedent that is out of wack with the rest of the body of common law jurisprudence, which is what you would get in your "bribed judge in Bumfuckingstan" scenario.

That may be grounds for appeal (as an error in law for not considering a valid precedent) depending on the circumstances, but then the issue gets decided by appellate court, who would feel even less bound by an obviously unjust ruling.

Precedent isn't something a common law court justice applies in a blind and robotic fashion.

[Tsyroc]

This is exactly the case in Colorado also: they're appointed but voters can remove them. I tried to research them all, but below the level of the State Supreme Court there was virtually no information online that I could find in the amount of time I was willing to devote to this (ie: half an afternoon), so I voted to retain the one that seemed cool based on her record, voted against the other one because he's a registered Republican, and left the rest alone (except for this one guy from the lower courts called John Madden, because really? John Madden? Just fuck right off. Okay, that was a little capricious of me, but I mostly voted responsibly, honest...)

The judicial review I saw this year only had retain / do not retain recommendations, but in the past I've seen judges evaluated in three sections. One was by other judges. Another was attorney's who've appeared in that judges court, and the last was people who've had cases heard by that judge. Both versions were very quick and easy to access. The more indepth version detailed the person's knowledge of the law and how they treated people in their courtroom.

I think that some of the same information is also published in the pre-election books that are sent out to households with registered voters.

I'm pretty sure that the only judge I've seen with a negative recommendations has managed to make it through at least two elections without getting voted out. She's a judge in family court and her reviews keep getting worse and worse.

[blahface]

During this last election I voted on whether quite a few state and local judges should be retained in office.

IIRC they are appointed to their position but the voters have the power to remove them, which is pretty difficult because most voters don't bother to do even a little bit of research about judges and who is going to spend money to advertise about the ones who should be removed.

This is exactly the case in Colorado also: they're appointed but voters can remove them. I tried to research them all, but below the level of the State Supreme Court there was virtually no information online that I could find in the amount of time I was willing to devote to this (ie: half an afternoon), so I voted to retain the one that seemed cool based on her record, voted against the other one because he's a registered Republican, and left the rest alone (except for this one guy from the lower courts called John Madden, because really? John Madden? Just fuck right off. Okay, that was a little capricious of me, but I mostly voted responsibly, honest...)

For a future reference, you can go to Judgepedia. Sometimes it may give you information about controversial rulings.

[Irbis]

Precedent in the US doesn't work anything like that. Decisions from lower courts do not set binding precedent, and I don't think any of the appeals courts or federal courts are elected. Plus, precedents are only binding in that state for state courts or that circuit for federal courts.

If there is a binding precedent that a judge thinks is obviously unjust they have the discretion to distinguish it from the facts of the case before them or to just ignore it. This is particularly the case for a precedent that is out of wack with the rest of the body of common law jurisprudence, which is what you would get in your "bribed judge in Bumfuckingstan" scenario.

That may be grounds for appeal (as an error in law for not considering a valid precedent) depending on the circumstances, but then the issue gets decided by appellate court, who would feel even less bound by an obviously unjust ruling.

Precedent isn't something a common law court justice applies in a blind and robotic fashion.

Well, yes, you can go to appellate or even supreme courts, but aren't they all appointed either by voters or directly by politicians? When I was reading about US Supreme Court, I had less of an impression of court, more of third parliament chamber where people can well vote "out of whack" and produce something even more out of whack if it agrees with judge's political standing. Just look at corporate personhood and its recent expansion to vote funding (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), for example, as it overruled previous Supreme Court 2003 ruling thanks to Bush bootlicker additions in meantime.

If they were just interested in the body of common law jurisprudence, you wouldn't have protests every time new left leaning judge is nominated, or people like Scalia or Alito voting like 200% Republicans.

[Irbis]

Ghetto edit: Well fuck, the South has to go and prove me wrong about no one being stupid enough to elect their supreme courts.

I just checked, and 38 states elects their Supreme Court members in popular vote. Jesus. At least some of these do require qualifications to be elected, but seeing how easy it is to find at least one useful nutjob with a diploma, well...

[Coop D'etat]

Precedent in the US doesn't work anything like that. Decisions from lower courts do not set binding precedent, and I don't think any of the appeals courts or federal courts are elected. Plus, precedents are only binding in that state for state courts or that circuit for federal courts.

If there is a binding precedent that a judge thinks is obviously unjust they have the discretion to distinguish it from the facts of the case before them or to just ignore it. This is particularly the case for a precedent that is out of wack with the rest of the body of common law jurisprudence, which is what you would get in your "bribed judge in Bumfuckingstan" scenario.

That may be grounds for appeal (as an error in law for not considering a valid precedent) depending on the circumstances, but then the issue gets decided by appellate court, who would feel even less bound by an obviously unjust ruling.

Precedent isn't something a common law court justice applies in a blind and robotic fashion.

Well, yes, you can go to appellate or even supreme courts, but aren't they all appointed either by voters or directly by politicians? When I was reading about US Supreme Court, I had less of an impression of court, more of third parliament chamber where people can well vote "out of whack" and produce something even more out of whack if it agrees with judge's political standing. Just look at corporate personhood and its recent expansion to vote funding (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), for example, as it overruled previous Supreme Court 2003 ruling thanks to Bush bootlicker additions in meantime.

If they were just interested in the body of common law jurisprudence, you wouldn't have protests every time new left leaning judge is nominated, or people like Scalia or Alito voting like 200% Republicans.

The thing you got to remember when talking about the SCOTUS is that its the really politically charged cases that get all the press and its the politically charged stuff that gets settled on ideological lines. That isn't the bulk of what they do as the final court of appeal.

As maligned as Scalia and Alito get, they do represent reasonably widespread views within the American legal community. So no, they aren't beyond the pale for American common law jurisprudence. They might have a lot of notions that look strange or dangerous, but that is a reflection of American society having said notions. For example, considering money to be closely linked to speech isn't an absurd notion in strains of American thought on civil liberties. Crazy as you might think they are, people who vote Republican are considerable chunk of American society and its not that wierd for the American judicial system to reflect their worldview to a certain extent. Scalia would be completely out of whack on the Supreme Court of Canada or the European Court of Justice, but in American there are a lot of people in their legal system who agree with him.

Now as an outsider trained from a different common law jurisdiction, I find much of this stuff crazy too. But you got to understand the context where this comes from.

[Raw Shark]

For a future reference, you can go to Judgepedia. Sometimes it may give you information about controversial rulings.

Yeah, I found that, thanks. There wasn't a lot of that sort of information for judges lower than the State Supreme Court this time around, mostly just how long they'd served and where they went to school, but I read them all.

[PKRudeBoy]

Ghetto edit: Well fuck, the South has to go and prove me wrong about no one being stupid enough to elect their supreme courts.

I just checked, and 38 states elects their Supreme Court members in popular vote. Jesus. At least some of these do require qualifications to be elected, but seeing how easy it is to find at least one useful nutjob with a diploma, well...

I wouldn't count the 16 states using the Missouri Plan as elections. It's an appointment with a retention election after a year, which seems like a decent compromise between elections and appointments. The 15 states that have nonpartisan elections make me cringe, but the fact that 7 states have partisan elections for their supreme courts makes my head want to explode.

[Welf]

Hell, binding precedent doesn't even work that way. If there is a binding precedent that a judge thinks is obviously unjust they have the discretion to distinguish it from the facts of the case before them or to just ignore it. This is particularly the case for a precedent that is out of wack with the rest of the body of common law jurisprudence, which is what you would get in your "bribed judge in Bumfuckingstan" scenario.

That may be grounds for appeal (as an error in law for not considering a valid precedent) depending on the circumstances, but then the issue gets decided by appellate court, who would feel even less bound by an obviously unjust ruling.

Precedent isn't something a common law court justice applies in a blind and robotic fashion.

That only works if 1 judge is bought and the rest fairly reviews the precedent in a well known case. If 10 or 20 judges are bought and it's a case that requires specific knowledge the other judges will decide accordingly. And with enough precedents even the appellation courts are more likely to adopt certain rulings.