For partisan judicial elections, candidates are selected by and affiliated with a political party whereas nonpartisan judicial elections “require candidates to campaign unaffiliated with any political party, and they appear on the ballot without a party designation” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn, 2013). Partisan elections allowed for judges to be responsive to the same forces as those given to other elected officials; therefore, the concern of this feature caused for a shift leading away from partisan elections to nonpartisan. This is because these elections “reduced the influence party politics have on judicial elections, they also remove party identification as a basis for voters to cast their ballots” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn,
In advising the Chief Justice, it is obvious that the voting districts should be redrawn for a multitude of reasons. As the system of drawing districts stands, it is highly vulnerable to corruption for the party in power, as they are the ones deciding the districts. Concurrently, those in power are incentivized to maintain their power through any means necessary; which, in a democracy, is obtaining the most votes. Because it is extremely difficult determining whether or not the drawing of a district is preferential to one party over another is, the risk to those in power is minimal while the potential payout is high. Thus, short of any moral reasoning to stop them, the likelihood of someone gaming the design of voting districts is high.
The appointment of judges has become clearly political. It is not uncommon to hear of candidates making statements with regards to contested political issues as well as the use of partisan language. According to (Bannon, 10) “For neutral arbiters, this heightened political temperature risks exacerbating pressures to decide cases based on political loyalty or expediency, rather than on their understanding of the law.” The selection of judges through popular election therefore suffers serious flaws since the electorate tend to base their decisions on charm instead of serious determinants. The results can be that the person elected as a judge turns out to be one who falls short of the glory of this office in terms of experience, legal training and education.
The quality of judges would without a doubt increase if they were appointed. However, I do not agree with the idea of judges being appointed. When looking at the partisan aspect you notice several possible issues with one issue being, is that individual the right person to do the job. Partisan election of judges allows for an individual that may not be as qualified for the job to be elected into the position. Nevertheless the partisan election of judges gives the voters what they want based on party affiliation along with qualifications.
Gerrymandering is a practice that stopped redistricting and goes to establish a political advantage for a specific party or group by manipulating district limits to create biased advantage districts. The process for making a congressional district map in Texas has grown more complex and significant over the years. Districts are usually drawn by politicians that typically have a vested interest in the effect of the new lines; according to laws and regulations they're subject to judicial review. This gives the state the power to control and maintain their districts. The disadvantage is that it allows representatives who could not otherwise get elected, to be elected.
Gerrymandering is defined as “the dividing of a state, county, etc., into election districts so as to give one political party a majority in many districts while concentrating the voting strength of the other party into as few districts as possible.” Moreover, the number of Congressional districts in a state is based on the state’s population. Every ten years, the districts can be redrawn as the state’s population number changes. Gerrymandering groups the opposing party’s voters into a few large districts and the controlling party’s voters into various small districts.
Democratic Republicans, preferred an agricultural community, in which the farmer would have his opinions considered, and a central government would in no way be in presence. Federalists, contemplated in a solid, central government to command the public and prevent a dreadful "monarchy". Jefferson initiated to take a stand versus Hamilton when Hamilton recommended his financial plan. He desired to refinance state debt to reinforce the union and and thus enhance centralization. He likewise sought to generate a more economic government as well as preferred to design it after England's flourishing economy.
Is Gerrymandering a Controversial Topic? Gerrymandering is a process where the ruling political party uses the map of their state to draw lines that create voting districts in favor of their party. The result of this is that it doesn’t reflect the voters political views. For about 200 years the government has used gerrymandering during political elections and it continues to be used today (King, Elizabeth) .
What is “Gerrymandering”? which until now was something that never crossed my mind until I attended my Political Science class. Interestingly, Gerrymandering is a tradition vested for a political advantage by a political party to manipulate the district boundaries. Gerrymandering can also be used to utilize from a race, ethnicity, class groups or religion point of prospect, simply to benefit a political party. “The word “gerrymander” was coined at a Boston dinner party hosted by a prominent Federalist in March 1812, according to an 1892 article by historian John Ward Dean.
To begin with, the problem with having the people elect their judges is that the citizens know next to nothing about who they are voting for. Of course, it is important the people have a say in the decision-making, but the fact of the matter is that not everyone is an expert in government. Candidates have no problem in persuading the people that the other candidate is evil and corrupted and not suitable to serve. Furthermore, it is difficult to learn how well a judge preforms his or her job once they are put into office. Why?
The Dark Side of Gerrymandering Gerrymandering has been around ever since the forefathers of America first started the nations democratic voting system. Gerrymandering is the redistribution of electoral district lines in order to give the redistributors an unfair political advantage (Elliot). While it is technically a legal practice, it allows the political parties in office to find a way to gain political advantages by separating minorities and voters of opposing political parties. The social inequalities and federal dishonesty associated with gerrymandering must be addressed and regulated as it poses a real problem for Americans as their votes are having less and less of an impact on elections. There are two common types of gerrymandering
A citizen would not be wasting their vote by voting for a third party candidate because it is not a waste of a vote if they believe in the person you vote for or if they believe it is the right choice. For example if the citizen agrees with the candidates policies they will be voting for the right reasons. This is because they are not voting for anyone just because they are popular and are said to win. A citizen should want their message to be advocated to america through someone who believes in their message. That someone will promote issues that the citizens want to be heard.
Most supreme court justices are biased and act from partisan positions. A partisan is a committed member of their political party: They strongly support their parties policies. Although the supreme court justices should have the option to be able to agree with their party, they should not overlook the actual case. Decision on a case should be because of its background, not solely because a person 's party agreed with it. The supreme court should not be permitted to act on partisan positions.
We enjoy our ability to exercise our rights in the voting booth. With that in mind, electing judges serves the will of the people and makes us feel as though we have a measured amount of control over the judicial system. This requires judicial candidates to expose their lives to public scrutiny and represent their voting pool. Conversely, appointed judges would have an easier time concealing truths about themselves that they would prefer the public not see. Favors among close circles of officials are likely easier to be traded in secret.
INTRODUCTION The United States political structure is one of the most conducive and great political system in the world. One of the most popular aspects of it is the two party system, and the well-known Democratic and Republican parties. There are three major party systems in the world and they are one-party system, two-party system and multi-party system. This essay will analyse the two party system in the United States (U.S.), their structure and the benefits of a two party system in a states.
