>Leaving things in the hands of the people will always be a better outcome than letting political hacks decide. In most parliamentary countries this is not the

>Leaving things in the hands of the people will always be a better outcome than letting political hacks decide. In most parliamentary countries this is not the case. In Australia, specifically the state of NSW, the judges are appointed by the Governor who goes with the suggestion of the Attorney General (by convention, not requirement), and while the position of Attorney General is not directly elected each member of cabinet has to be elected by the public. To make sure allegations of corruption are independently assessed, there is an Independent Commission Against Corruption, or ICAC, that can investigate individuals for corruption in a public office. The checks and balances are pretty broad in that model, and there's no risk of appealing to fallacies which can happen in the direct election model e.g. appealing to 'common sense'.