The American Triple E senate does have the benefit of providing a voice to smaller states and prevents a tyranny of the majority. The problem in the American system is the president is also not elected by direct representation and the senate and president choose the Supreme Court. This means you end up with 2.5 of your 3 seperate levels of government not always following the will of the voters.
The fix is to make the presidency popular vote only or have justices confirmed by the house instead of the senate.
It's no easy feat becoming a judge in Canada. While you don't have to campaign and get elected like you would for many judicial posts in the United States, you do have to persuade a committee to put your name forward for consideration.
Judges are appointed either federally or provincially, depending on the level of court. The process — no matter what the court — is similar across the country.
However, the process of making appointments to the bench has sometimes been seen as an opportunity to hand out plum jobs to political friends. In the fall of 2005, a parliamentary subcommittee looked into allegations of rampant partisanship in the appointment of judges below the level of the Supreme Court. And in April 2010, Quebec Premier Jean Charest ordered a public inquiry after his former justice minister alleged he was pressured to name certain judges to the bench based on the recommendations of major Liberal Party fundraisers.
This sounds like a terrible idea. Tyranny of the majority is the inevitable outcome. The judicial branched long terms and lack of elections is the check on the majority power.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
We vote to keep local judges after they have been appointed. I barely feel qualified to do that, and I consider myself a well-educated person. I can only imagine how someone with a mediocre education might vote.
Can you imagine the general population voting for a supreme court nominee? The general population is grossly underqualified to do such a thing.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.
This sounds like a terrible idea. Tyranny of the majority is the inevitable outcome. The judicial branched long terms and lack of elections is the check on the majority power.
Exactly. But many people here express concern that the SC is not representative of the electorate because of the way they are appointed. To which I say: be careful what you wish for.
That is interesting. A popular vote Presidential race would have to be done the French Way with 2 rounds? Would you do a ranked ballot? The thing I see is that over time, additional parties would start to campaign and get traction which is that the two major parties do not want. Last election Gary Johnson got 4% of the vote in a system where nobody cares. In a straight popular vote he would get more.
The Democrats and Republicans may be at each other throats about almost everything but one thing they agree on it their two party duopoly.
Or go to a must voting system, where you order your candidates 1-5 with the 1st getting five points, the 2nd getting four, 3rd getting three and so on. Get it done in one vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoLevi
Or have people just elect the Supreme Court
I like the idea. And introduce term limits (20 years) to make up for mistakes. Recall is also possible.
You know the Republicans are trotting out Barrett and the networks are smearing her all week. then on Saturday Trump will nominate Lagoa and they will go "what?"
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
This sounds like a terrible idea. Tyranny of the majority is the inevitable outcome. The judicial branched long terms and lack of elections is the check on the majority power.
But if it crosses from "a check on majority power" to an instrument of "tyranny of the minority"? Surely tyranny of the majority then becomes preferable.
But if it crosses from "a check on majority power" to an instrument of "tyranny of the minority"? Surely tyranny of the majority then becomes preferable.
Not when there is a very clear and simple path for the majority to solve the problem.
I personally like the concept of at least one branch of government being apolitical. I would rather find a better way to do that than to make the courts even more political.
I personally like the concept of at least one branch of government being apolitical. I would rather find a better way to do that than to make the courts even more political.
Have the president put forth the nomination and all members of the same party have to recuse themselves from the vote.
Republican president, democratic senators confirm and vise versa.
They either pick someone they can all agree on or the pick no one. Eventually it'll get sorted out.
The Following User Says Thank You to Dan02 For This Useful Post:
I personally like the concept of at least one branch of government being apolitical. I would rather find a better way to do that than to make the courts even more political.
How about something crazy, like the courts do the nominations? There could be standing committees that are responsible for finding and confirming talent in their respective courts, and then they work cooperatively to make the nominations to the Supreme Court? Kind of like a head hunting firm within the system to find the best talent available in the system. Representation of 13 on each committee (12 jurors and a judge/arbiter).
So for the District court the 94 districts would nominate a representative, and the committee would be made up randomly, or by formula, of those nominees to make appropriate nominations based on expertise, experience, and ability to serve. The Appellate court would each have a representative and rotate the arbiter role, through a yearly or random schedule. They would be responsible for the nominations in their court.
For Supreme Court nominations, the Districts could then nominate one individual, the Appellate court would then winnow that list down to four, and then that list submitted to the Senate for vetting and confirmation. The best candidates with actual skill would get through, and the bull#### of the day is removed from the mix. The Senate's role is just to complete the vote and get the nominee in place.
I'm okay with the current system as is, so long as demagogues and power hungry senators without any moral code aren't the one's making decisions. This is a rare confluence of terrible. Traditionally, it hasn't been nearly this contentious until this president and this senate majority leader. I'm even fine with holding the position for life should the justice appear to be good at their job and not prone to extreme bias.
However, I do think that there should be a vote every 8-10 years (depending on election cycle) on whether or not to keep that justice in their position. The country is 50/50 left and right, and so a purely popular vote to confirm the justice or ask for their removal would be on the ballot once a decade. This would force accountability to the public and also remove any extreme elements from the bench. This way the best candidates are selected, but there is still accountability to the public.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.
And Americans hate the electoral college because it is not representative. The American people want a democracy instead of a republic. That is the change that has to be made. The system works if the rules are followed, the problem is that the rules are perverted for the sake of maintenance of power. The government is there to govern, for all people, not just the corporations who paid for your campaign. That's the problem.
Those that hate the EC would likely be singing the praises of the founding father's wisdom had the 2016 presidential election been reversed and Trump had won the popular vote but lost the EC. This isn't directed at you, but I think for most people, their issue with the electoral college is the result, not the method itself.
I mostly frequent conservative oriented sites/forums so CP is the most left leaning forum that I view and I have to say that this thread has been eye-opening to me in some ways. The similarities between those that identify as Democrats and those that identify as Republicans really is surprising.
When it comes to the SC, both sides think the other is politicizing the court. Both sides think that their preferred judges are dispassionate and neutral when it comes to interpreting the law, while they believe that the other side allows their personal biases to effect their judgement. Both sides think that the other side is attempting to use the court to ram through what they want. Both sides think that the other side isn't playing fair. I could go on but you get the point.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ark2 For This Useful Post:
Those that hate the EC would likely be singing the praises of the founding father's wisdom had the 2016 presidential election been reversed and Trump had won the popular vote but lost the EC. This isn't directed at you, but I think for most people, their issue with the electoral college is the result, not the method itself.
That is true. However it's becoming a more urban vs rural issue. More and more people are living in urban areas and the majority of them are liberal. Going to the city just opens ones eyes to different ideas, which is the whole philosophy of liberalism. So the more people move to cities, the more likely they will vote Democrats and the more likely that vote doesn't count due to the EC.
EC is determined by house reps plus 2 (senators). Why hasn't house seats increased? It's been 435 since 1911! If the Democrats win everything in November, they should look at this.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
I mostly frequent conservative oriented sites/forums so CP is the most left leaning forum that I view and I have to say that this thread has been eye-opening to me in some ways. The similarities between those that identify as Democrats and those that identify as Republicans really is surprising.
When it comes to the SC, both sides think the other is politicizing the court. Both sides think that their preferred judges are dispassionate and neutral when it comes to interpreting the law, while they believe that the other side allows their personal biases to effect their judgement. Both sides think that the other side is attempting to use the court to ram through what they want. Both sides think that the other side isn't playing fair. I could go on but you get the point.
You're quite correct, this forum is actually very left-leaning.
Also, identifying the issues with the current climate or the overall system by using the words "both sides" invalidates the argument for reasons that are unrelated to logic.
