3 ms·

Yes, I think it's virtually impossible for someone with no party affiliation at all to win. Running a national campaign would pretty much require some party org

Yes, I think it's virtually impossible for someone with no party affiliation at all to win. Running a national campaign would pretty much require some party organization even if it's a third party. That being said, if they were an independent then I guess they are effectively a party of one and can just pick their own judges? Similar to with the voters, I don't really care what party a judge says (or doesn't say) they are a member of. My concern is who appoints them. So I would consider a situation where a disproportionate number of judges have been appointed by one party to be skewed.

eesmith 4y ago
> So I would consider a situation where a disproportionate number of judges have been appointed by one party to be skewed. My observations concern your earlier statement "the law could require the ratios of federal judges to match the ratio of the popular vote in the most recent election". I said that had problems. The new criteria of "disproportionate number" is too subjective to provide meaningful policy. After Lincoln was elected, and the then-new Republican Party got 39.8% of the vote, you would have let the new President replace a substantial number of existing judges? You'll need to be careful as "party" is a bit tricky when you get to the details. If I'm a member of a state party, am I also a member of the national party? Consider the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, created in 1944. It is NOT the US Democratic Party, but like all state Democratic parties it is affiliated with the US Democratic Party. Would party membership have changed due to the merger? Where once there were Farmer-Labor and Democratic Party judges, would some of them need to be kicked out because in 1945 they were the same party? This could lead to all sorts of interesting ways to game the system, like a state with three Democratic Party-affiliated state parties, and bylaws that allow membership in multiple (affiliated) parties at the same time. Or as another hack, legally abolish the party every few years and create a new one (X Party 2028, X Party 2032, etc), and allow automatic transfer of members into the new party. Poof - now every re-election the administration gets to change out any judge, because none of the existing judges were appointed by the President of X Party 2036.
- harimau777 4y ago
  I don't understand what you are getting at with the scenarios you are presenting. Even if a party abolished and re-established itself after each election, they would still only be able to appoint a portion of the judges equal to the portion of the vote they received. Similarly, having multiple affiliated parties wouldn't provide any benefit because voters would still ultimately have to split their votes between them. The proportion of the vote that the affiliated parties is unchanged. I'm not particularly concerned with how many of the judges are replaced after each election; as long as the end result is that the judges reflect the political makeup of the country. Even replacing all of the judges every election would be better than the current situation where Republican judges could control the Supreme Court for decades due to lifetime appointments.

eesmith 4y ago

> So I would consider a situation where a disproportionate number of judges have been appointed by one party to be skewed. My observations concern your earlier statement "the law could require the ratios of federal judges to match the ratio of the popular vote in the most recent election". I said that had problems. The new criteria of "disproportionate number" is too subjective to provide meaningful policy. After Lincoln was elected, and the then-new Republican Party got 39.8% of the vote, you would have let the new President replace a substantial number of existing judges? You'll need to be careful as "party" is a bit tricky when you get to the details. If I'm a member of a state party, am I also a member of the national party? Consider the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, created in 1944. It is NOT the US Democratic Party, but like all state Democratic parties it is affiliated with the US Democratic Party. Would party membership have changed due to the merger? Where once there were Farmer-Labor and Democratic Party judges, would some of them need to be kicked out because in 1945 they were the same party? This could lead to all sorts of interesting ways to game the system, like a state with three Democratic Party-affiliated state parties, and bylaws that allow membership in multiple (affiliated) parties at the same time. Or as another hack, legally abolish the party every few years and create a new one (X Party 2028, X Party 2032, etc), and allow automatic transfer of members into the new party. Poof - now every re-election the administration gets to change out any judge, because none of the existing judges were appointed by the President of X Party 2036.

harimau777 4y ago
I don't understand what you are getting at with the scenarios you are presenting. Even if a party abolished and re-established itself after each election, they would still only be able to appoint a portion of the judges equal to the portion of the vote they received. Similarly, having multiple affiliated parties wouldn't provide any benefit because voters would still ultimately have to split their votes between them. The proportion of the vote that the affiliated parties is unchanged. I'm not particularly concerned with how many of the judges are replaced after each election; as long as the end result is that the judges reflect the political makeup of the country. Even replacing all of the judges every election would be better than the current situation where Republican judges could control the Supreme Court for decades due to lifetime appointments.