This poll is to determine support for various options to change the election laws regarding elections of the members of the judiciary. The result of this poll does not change the law, it just tells us which of the many options would be most likely to be adopted as the new law.
The options require varying amounts of effort to implement. A plethora of information about how hard each would be is contained in the related discussion thread. This is a multi-choice poll, please vote for each of the methods that you would support.
Now, on to the options.
Option A is the status quo, with a single-choice poll for the entire judiciary. The top vote getter is the CJ, and the next two are AJ's.
Option B is the old way of electing the judiciary, with separate polls for each of the 3 positions. According to other parts of the law, an individual would only be able to run for one position (CJ, AJ1, AJ2) and the losers of each position would end up not being on the bench.
Option C is the old way (separate elections for each position) along with the necessary changes to allow someone to run for both CJ and AJ.
Option D is a single election for CJ and a single election for both AJ positions, with the 1st and 2nd place AJ candidates taking office.
Option E is a single election for the entire judiciary, with a multi-select poll (vote for as many candidates as you wish). The person with the most votes is CJ, the next two are AJs.
Option F means you want to see some other method of electing the judiciary. Please post the method you would like to see.
Option G is abstain.
This poll will remain open for 48 hours, as it is informational in nature only.
The discussion thread.
The options require varying amounts of effort to implement. A plethora of information about how hard each would be is contained in the related discussion thread. This is a multi-choice poll, please vote for each of the methods that you would support.
Now, on to the options.
Option A is the status quo, with a single-choice poll for the entire judiciary. The top vote getter is the CJ, and the next two are AJ's.
Option B is the old way of electing the judiciary, with separate polls for each of the 3 positions. According to other parts of the law, an individual would only be able to run for one position (CJ, AJ1, AJ2) and the losers of each position would end up not being on the bench.
Option C is the old way (separate elections for each position) along with the necessary changes to allow someone to run for both CJ and AJ.
Option D is a single election for CJ and a single election for both AJ positions, with the 1st and 2nd place AJ candidates taking office.
Option E is a single election for the entire judiciary, with a multi-select poll (vote for as many candidates as you wish). The person with the most votes is CJ, the next two are AJs.
Option F means you want to see some other method of electing the judiciary. Please post the method you would like to see.
Option G is abstain.
This poll will remain open for 48 hours, as it is informational in nature only.
The discussion thread.