Bill_in_PDX
Grumpy Submariner
No, I don't mean "fix" as in the way results have been skewed and fixed the last two terms. I mean fix it so it works, and reflects the votes of the people.
Our current "one election" process is supposedly intended to ensure we get the three best folks elected to the bench. This is clearly not occuring, and in fact both elections (and follow on elections, and withdrawls, and Judicial Reviews by the very group in question) under this method could be generously described as flawed. They could also be accurately described as ripe for fraud.
What is happening is that people are using the bulk elections approach as a back up in case they lose the election they really want to run in. This happened twice this term alone.
In this case, and individual won the presidency, who would have won a position on the Court, and is attempting to resign the position while maintaining the right to now handpick via appointment their replacement. Thanks to the Election Office ruling that people who are no longer in the election can still win, that President now has the right to appoint two people, and hold the majority vote of the Court.
I am not saying that Zorven is a bad person, or has bad intentions. I am definately saying that allowing individuals to have that much power is not the intention of our executive, judicial, legislative form of government.
Speaking of too much power, we also have a Elections Office that does not answer to the people at all, for any decision. This is clearly unconstitutional.
It is an embarrassment to our nation, and a diservice to the people of Fanatika that this continues on. That process is hardly one that we should endorse.
What is the solution and how hard is it too impliment?
I propose the following:
1) The judiciary election is split into two elections. One for CJ, and one for the two AJ's.
2) Anyone accepting nominations in the Judiciary elections cannot run run in a legislative or executive branch election.
Yes, we would have to change laws for this, it is intended to get a discussion going, so please don't post, "no" , you can't do that, it is unconstitutional.
We, the people, not a select few who steer the government, control both our nation, and our laws, and we can do whatever the heck we want to do. The government's job is to impliment what we want. So if enough people are sick of the legal b******t going on, and are willing to get behind a solution (not even my solution, just a solution that addresses the clear disaster that is our law on judical elections), we can fix the problem.
The last step, #2 above, is quite harsh, I hear the chorus of NO NO NO already as I type this. However, it is a sure way to make certain that the folks running for judiciary are not just doing it so they have something to fall back on when they lose their other election.
We deserve better Justices than that.
Our current "one election" process is supposedly intended to ensure we get the three best folks elected to the bench. This is clearly not occuring, and in fact both elections (and follow on elections, and withdrawls, and Judicial Reviews by the very group in question) under this method could be generously described as flawed. They could also be accurately described as ripe for fraud.
What is happening is that people are using the bulk elections approach as a back up in case they lose the election they really want to run in. This happened twice this term alone.
In this case, and individual won the presidency, who would have won a position on the Court, and is attempting to resign the position while maintaining the right to now handpick via appointment their replacement. Thanks to the Election Office ruling that people who are no longer in the election can still win, that President now has the right to appoint two people, and hold the majority vote of the Court.
I am not saying that Zorven is a bad person, or has bad intentions. I am definately saying that allowing individuals to have that much power is not the intention of our executive, judicial, legislative form of government.
Speaking of too much power, we also have a Elections Office that does not answer to the people at all, for any decision. This is clearly unconstitutional.
It is an embarrassment to our nation, and a diservice to the people of Fanatika that this continues on. That process is hardly one that we should endorse.
What is the solution and how hard is it too impliment?
I propose the following:
1) The judiciary election is split into two elections. One for CJ, and one for the two AJ's.
2) Anyone accepting nominations in the Judiciary elections cannot run run in a legislative or executive branch election.
Yes, we would have to change laws for this, it is intended to get a discussion going, so please don't post, "no" , you can't do that, it is unconstitutional.
We, the people, not a select few who steer the government, control both our nation, and our laws, and we can do whatever the heck we want to do. The government's job is to impliment what we want. So if enough people are sick of the legal b******t going on, and are willing to get behind a solution (not even my solution, just a solution that addresses the clear disaster that is our law on judical elections), we can fix the problem.
The last step, #2 above, is quite harsh, I hear the chorus of NO NO NO already as I type this. However, it is a sure way to make certain that the folks running for judiciary are not just doing it so they have something to fall back on when they lose their other election.
We deserve better Justices than that.
