4 ms·
> No, that's silly and not at all the same thing as a prosecutor being accountable to the electorate as a whole. In my perspective, it is exactly the same thin
by seadan83 2y ago
> No, that's silly and not at all the same thing as a prosecutor being accountable to the electorate as a whole.
In my perspective, it is exactly the same thing when you disagree with the electorate. Which is why (personnally) I don't want you, or any electorate choosing prosecutors.
If every time you voted for a prosecutor, and every time your vote was in a minority, would you still feel you had a say in the bias of the prosecutor?
I agree with respect to appointments being not good. In my view those are proxies for an election. I personally trust neither electorate nor elected officials.
- Hasu 2y ago> In my perspective, it is exactly the same thing when you disagree with the electorate. In a democracy, you can argue with and convince your fellow citizens to change the law and how it is enforced. If a majority doesn't agree, you won't get your way. This is not a good system, but it is better than any other system. If there were some other alternative that guaranteed that everyone always gets a completely unbiased prosecutor - great, I'm all for it! That system doesn't exist, though.
- seadan83 2y agoWould you answer: > If every time you voted for a prosecutor, and every time your vote was in a minority, would you still feel you had a say in the bias of the prosecutor? You said previously at least by voting you had a say in the bias. Is your answer to the above a genuine "yes" because you feel there was opportunity to lobby other citizens? I don't agree that there is necessarily even that possibility. Thus my position is that elected or appointed by an elected official are equally broken.