4 ms·

I don't actually think voting for judges and sheriffs is a good idea at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

digitalengineer 13y ago
Oh, that guy. He's even know over here. (Journalists like to pick out the most 'interesting' persons). That guy scares me. You also vote for judges? Would it help if there was a maximum someone could get voted for? Like with your president?
- adventured 13y ago
  It's ideal for most judges to be elected to life terms. That limits concerns about them needing to serve the politics of the minute to get re-elected. They can take principled stands without worrying about being thrown out. The Supreme Court has routine stood up to both Congress and the President, and they can only do that because they can't be removed (except under extraordinary circumstances of corruption).
  - ameister14 13y ago
    It is ideal for some judges to be elected to life terms, but not most. This is because community standards change, and most judges don't have the scrutiny the Supreme Court is under.
- meddlepal 13y ago
  It's a state issue. Some states have appointed, for life judges and others use voting. Personally I think voted-judges are wrong for a lot of reasons but particularly because it makes judges political beings which they really ought not to be.
- Spooky23 13y ago
  In New York, most judges are elected to 14 year terms. There are a few exceptions, but mostly for traffic courts or administrative judges. They do run in partisan elections, but they are limited with regard to claims they can make about opponents, and a non-partisan commission evaluates the overall qualifications of each judge. Are there issues with politicalization? Absolutely. But don't make the assumption that election == politics, and appointment != politics. An elected judge at least nominally is accountable to the people. The examples where this system doesn't work well is usually when machine politics corrupt the process of electing judges. If the judge was appointed, chances are they would be accountable to nobody at all.
adventured 13y ago
One example doesn't make a case. I'd argue that the system of electing sheriffs has overall worked tremendously well in the US. The alternative is appointment by insiders or a board, both of which are easily susceptible to corruption, and that can make it difficult to impossible to correct said corruption when it happens.
Vivtek 13y ago
He's the guy his constituents want. I personally think voting for sheriffs is a good idea.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  He's not the guy his constituents want. He is the guy 51.5% of his constituents want. Giving the people what a majority of those people want is a very dangerous thing to do. Part of the theory being having constitutions is to limit the tyranny of the majority, though it is plain to see that in Joe Arpaio's case the limitations are not sufficient. What 51% of voters in Maricopa County apparently want is unacceptable.
  - Vivtek 13y ago
    Well, 51.5% is better than the small minority that would be served if he weren't an elected official - and the threat of losing his next election keeps him at least moderately accountable. [insert Churchill quote here]

digitalengineer 13y ago

Oh, that guy. He's even know over here. (Journalists like to pick out the most 'interesting' persons). That guy scares me. You also vote for judges? Would it help if there was a maximum someone could get voted for? Like with your president?

adventured 13y ago
It's ideal for most judges to be elected to life terms. That limits concerns about them needing to serve the politics of the minute to get re-elected. They can take principled stands without worrying about being thrown out. The Supreme Court has routine stood up to both Congress and the President, and they can only do that because they can't be removed (except under extraordinary circumstances of corruption).
- ameister14 13y ago
  It is ideal for some judges to be elected to life terms, but not most. This is because community standards change, and most judges don't have the scrutiny the Supreme Court is under.
meddlepal 13y ago
It's a state issue. Some states have appointed, for life judges and others use voting. Personally I think voted-judges are wrong for a lot of reasons but particularly because it makes judges political beings which they really ought not to be.
Spooky23 13y ago
In New York, most judges are elected to 14 year terms. There are a few exceptions, but mostly for traffic courts or administrative judges. They do run in partisan elections, but they are limited with regard to claims they can make about opponents, and a non-partisan commission evaluates the overall qualifications of each judge. Are there issues with politicalization? Absolutely. But don't make the assumption that election == politics, and appointment != politics. An elected judge at least nominally is accountable to the people. The examples where this system doesn't work well is usually when machine politics corrupt the process of electing judges. If the judge was appointed, chances are they would be accountable to nobody at all.

adventured 13y ago

One example doesn't make a case. I'd argue that the system of electing sheriffs has overall worked tremendously well in the US. The alternative is appointment by insiders or a board, both of which are easily susceptible to corruption, and that can make it difficult to impossible to correct said corruption when it happens.

Vivtek 13y ago

He's the guy his constituents want. I personally think voting for sheriffs is a good idea.

jlgreco 13y ago
He's not the guy his constituents want. He is the guy 51.5% of his constituents want. Giving the people what a majority of those people want is a very dangerous thing to do. Part of the theory being having constitutions is to limit the tyranny of the majority, though it is plain to see that in Joe Arpaio's case the limitations are not sufficient. What 51% of voters in Maricopa County apparently want is unacceptable.
- Vivtek 13y ago
  Well, 51.5% is better than the small minority that would be served if he weren't an elected official - and the threat of losing his next election keeps him at least moderately accountable. [insert Churchill quote here]