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,
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.
and i totally agree with that. In the end partisan and racial gerrymandering is equally as bad and is very unfair toward any group.
A life tenure appointment would allow Justices full freedom from political pressure. One of the reasons was that it will keep honest people interested in the job (Federalist No. 78). Moreover, in Federalist No. 78, Hamilton justifies the importance of life tenure by arguing that it takes years of legal scholarship to interpret legislation. If court appointments were temporary, many people would be discouraged. Judicial candidates would not want to give up successful careers in law or politics.
You do not want Xlandia to be run on biases. If the people do select who are their judges, then they may be picking who will be kind to them, instead of being fair. You do not want a biased vote when it comes to the Constitution’s laws. We recommend that the Supreme Court should be independent and have the power of judicial review.
In America, judges have become too politicised . The government in power for example could be republican. They might appoint a judge who aligns with their political view and policy, causing that judge to interpret the constitution in such a way that allows the government to get away with something or may change rulings on a right. An example of this polarisation is the famous Bush v Gore case in 2000. In this case, a recount of votes in counties in Florida had not been undertaken, as was required due to the low majority.
In addition to judicial selection methods, at the federal level, the president and senate get to appoint seats to judges, in which they will have for life. In my opinion, I think this selection method is good to some extent because I trust that the president and senate have good judgment when it comes to picking judges that will be independent, fair, and accountable. At the state level, electing judges varies from state to state. In
In the essay, “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System” it is stated that political parties are “indispensable instruments of government” (pg. 174). It emphasizes that the parties should be “agencies of the electorate” because it needs the public 's support. In other words, “the party system that is needed must be democratic, responsible and effective” (pg. 176). An effective party will be able to present and carry out programs that they propose. However, if the cynicism of the public and the ineffectiveness of the party system continues to escalate, the nation may eventually witness the disintegration of the two major political parties.
Cons In an election reform, elections are underfunded and need to save money for proper equipment and trained personnel to keep uniformed ballots for federal elections, and universaol poll-closing time (Ornstein 2001, p. 16). By not having enough finances, the technology for the ballots are not always updated and there should only have one easy ballot with the same exact choices while having times for ballots opening and closing at the same time according to time
The main draw to merit selection is the commissions, which “minimize political influence by eliminating the need for candidates to raise funds, advertise, and make campaign promises, all of which can compromise judicial independence” (AJS, 2010, p. 1). Unfortunately, the commissions are the main drawback as well because many people think it is easily politically influenced. New York is a good example to analyze which one of these ideals is true since it changed from partisan election to merit selection in its highest courts, the court of appeals (Becker and Reddick, 2003, p. 25). Remember, merit selection most commonly uses retention elections to retain judges in office, but something unique about New York’s system is they do not use retention elections, which have been shown to be politically influenced like partisan elections (Reid, 1999, p. 68 and 69), subject to change with public opinion (Canes-Wrone, Clark, and Park, 2010, p. 229) , and have a low turnover rate (Carbon and Berkson, 1980, Abstract), like most states with merit selection of some kind. Retention elections have the main purpose of trying
The United States justice system is a complicated system. The justice system is the third branch of the government. This branch holds the responsibility to create and up hold laws. The justice system has a precise order of how things fall into place when a crime has been committed. The process to arrest an individual to the sentencing of that individual takes a bountiful amount of steps and procedures.
To win any kind of election/re-election candidates must work to please voters. Here in Texas where a majority of people have a strong pro-death penalty stance, judges must also have a strong stance regarding the death penalty if they would like to remain in office. This is concerning because judges will be more likely to seek he death penalty for the convicted so they can create a record of toughness to win over voters. Some elected judges are sometimes of lesser quality than appointed judges in other states, but since they have a record of toughness everything else is thrown out the window. District attorneys also try to maintain a tough reputation as well.
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.
In defense of the permissibility of abortion 1. Main argument My purpose in this paper is to critically access Thomson’s defense of the permissibility of abortion and further defend abortion with my supplement. My thesis is that abortion should be permitted by the choice of the pregnant women, premised on the fact that fetus is a person and abortion can only be performed at the cost of the children’s life. And since both the mother and the fetus have the right to life, the fetus may have the right to use the mother’s body, while the mother may also have the right to refuse fetus’s right to use her body.
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.
