>>It is far better for the law to be administered equally, fairly and impartially. Electing the administrators of the law (judges, police, etc) obviously makes impartiality impossible.
>
>Not obvious to me. Some judges are corrupt, some are not. As I said, I don't know of any studies which show that corruption is more prevalent in jurisdictions with elected judges vs. appointed ones.
I've addressed that. As I pointed out, what is corruption in an unelected law enforcement office can and would not be regarded as corruption in an elected police office. But enforcing the law in a political and partial manner is none the less destructive for being routine and legal.
> I'm not a close student of this subject. But I do know that all of the issues you bring up are quite familiar to Americans, and have been extensively discussed in this country. What ticks me off a bit is your assumption that we are some sort of political boobies who have never even thought of the ideas coming out of your fertile brain. I assure you that we are not that politically unsophisticated.
Thick, not unsophisticated.
>(And I wish you would read what I wrote and respond to it! The police in the U.S. are not elected! Are they in Australia? If you can't be bothered to read what I write and correct your mistakes of fact, I can't have a rational discussion with you.)
I should not have pretended not to notice your error, I'm sorry. For your information here are some random references to elected police in the US. I gather it is not all that unusual, I'm surprised you are unaware of the practice, but I guess I shouldn't be:
http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/politics2003/031403_danbury_2003.shtml
Residents vote to keep police chief elected job
Also: Raises are 4 percent across the board
Friday, Mar 14, 2003
By DANIEL BARRICK Monitor staff
Danbury
DANBURY - Danbury voters once again decided to keep their police chief an elected, rather than appointed, position.
By an eight-vote margin, residents rejected a suggestion by selectmen that the board would be better off choosing the head of department. Residents [...]
http://legal.firn.edu/muni/monticello/frisby.htm
Monticello Police Chief Frisby
The Monticello Police Department has an elected chief, David Frisby who is a former Florida public school teacher with a Masters degree in education Administration. The citizens of Monticello elect their chief every four years. David Frisby was elected Police Chief in November 1995. [...]
http://web.gosanangelo.com/archive/99/may/30/1.htm
News
5/30/99 By DANNY HAYES Staff Writer
Joe Gibson was elected chief of the San Angelo Police Department Saturday night, winning the post by more than 700 votes over Robert Martinez. [...]
>>>Well, if your view is that only "direct democracy" is really democracy, you're a lot more of a purist than I am. Where in the modern world is direct democracy operative?
>
>>Thatr isn't my view. I was merely pointing out that direct democracy is the ideal form of democracy, in >the sense that it more accurately reflects the wishes of the electorate.
>
>My view of democracy is that the system which most accurately reflects the wishes of the electorate at any given moment is not necessarily the best.
No arguments there. I don't know why you keep reading things into what I say that are not there.
> A good case in point is the late war. A majority of U.S. citizens were in favor of the war just before it started, when it started, during it, and even now most of them still approve of it. Does that mean they were right?
No.
>In other words, I'm not too impressed by schemes for formal democracy. To me, democracy is more a constant process of struggling with whatever powers that be to produce a more humane world. Any system that allows such a struggle to proceed is at least minimally democratic, and the more democratic movements can empower themselves, the more democratic it is. "Ideal democracy" is a term that means nothing to me. Actual, on-the-ground, concrete struggles are what matter.
To say that a particular form of democracy is an "ideal democracy" is not meant to imply that it represents the ideal society. You seem to be assuming This is what I meant though. (You are thick, not politically unsophisticated.) Democracy has lots of problems, especially political democracy.
>
>>It wouldn't even be regarded as "corrupt" for an elected judge to administer the law in a way which was more popular though, would it? It is entirely obvious that judges must tailor their decisions to pander to popular prejudice or fashion, rather than simply apply the law as it stands, equally and impartially.
>
>I think the lawyers on the list might be able to explain this to you better than I, but the clear distinction between administration and legislation that you are trying to draw is not realistic.
Perhaps not in an entirely pure sense, but the concept of the separation of powers, especially the separation of the administrative and legislative branches of government, is the foundation of modern free societies. The lack of popular understanding of this concept is one of the great dangers faced by democracies.
> There is literally no such thing as "applying the law as it stands, equally and impartially." Legislators, lawyers, judges, juries, and defendants are all individual human beings, each with their own mixed-up minds, each trying to do what they think is right by their own lights.
Of course, that's why there are appeal mechanisms of course. And there is no way that any justice system can escape from the influence of public opinion, if only because judges are human and cannot help caring what people think of them. There's not even anything wrong with that, so long as there are rights of appeal and the process is open.
However a judge being influenced by whether other people think the decision is just, is an entirely different kettle of fish to a judge being influenced by whether he thinks he might lose his job if he does something to offend a powerful interest group. That would mean the weak would always get the short end of the stick, whereas the justice system is supposed to give suckers an even break.
>While there are rotten judges in the U.S. (and I dare say, in Australia as well), there are also very good, conscientious ones, and yes, many of them are elected. Some judges, believe it or not, are lefties (though they don't make that fact too obvious -- but look at some recent decisions in this country on political issues and you'll see).
One of Tasmania's Supreme Court Judges is a former longstanding member of the Communist Party of Australia. Of course he was expected to give up all political activity once appointed, keep his trap shut. Its part of the job and he mostly does it. On the other hand he can not be sacked, except for serious misconduct. He will be influenced by his own experiences and prejudices, but he cannot be influenced by threats or inducements, the job is his until compulsory retirement age.
This is a far better system, everyone knows that except those who think it is better to have judges on a leash, so that their decisions can be influenced from outside the law.
>The big problem at this is not corrupt judges, IMHO -- it's the same old problem of class, race, etc., divisions. From recent experience in my own family, I realize how important it often is to be able to hire a high-priced attorney in order to get a good result in court. If you don't have the money, or the right skin color, you often get screwed. Whether the judge presiding in your case was elected and appointed doesn't particularly matter.
It might matter though. I've been in front of judges a few times, in actions against powerful government agencies, and been very grateful that these judges didn't have to worry about making political enemies and could just make a decision on how they see the merits of the case. I wouldn't have had a chance if the judges were subject to powerful vested interests, because I'm unemployed and powerless and the forces I was battling in the courts had immense power.
Of course the judges themselves are sometimes prejudiced or arbitrary, but not always. Sometimes you can do a David & Goliath.
>I'm afraid you're quite out of touch with the realities of U.S. politics. Of course our parties "run" (our term) candidates of their choice for election -- who else would they run? It's just that we don't have a proportional representation system.
No, you don't understand. I'm talking about the system of nominating who can even be on the ballot. Who will be the candidate for a particular political party in the US is often not determined by the party itself, but in a primary election by voters who are not even members of the party.
> I'm agnostic about whether a PR system would be "better" in some sense or other (especially better in the sense of making things easier for progressive, leftist movements) than the US system. We who have grown up with this system just learn how to make use of it for progressive purposes.
You clearly don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about. It isn't simply a choice between PR and first past the post. In between there is the simple preferential voting system, Americans haven't even mastered that yet!
PR is obviously too sophisticated for the Americans, but they could at least use a preferential system, rather than the anachronistic 19th century system currently employed.
This talk about third parties like the Greens taking votes from the major parties is telling in that it doesn't even seem to occur to anyone to demand a voting system that doesn't disenfranchise people who choose to vote for an outsider. To me it seems that preferential voting is an obvious and simple reform, in fact you should make a point of voting for candidates that can't possibly win, if only to force the major parties to reform the system.
If the Democrats for example were to keep losing elections because a small percentage of their supporters are voting for Greens or whatever, they might eventually get it through their thick heads that a preferential system which allowed every voter to nominate a second preference would mean that these votes might not be wasted. That they might get them and even be elected on the strength of being the second choice of many voters.
But instead what do we see here? Otherwise intelligent people ranting like lunatics about someone like Nader "wrecking" the election for the Democrats. It isn't Nader stupid, its the first past the post system! Those Nader voters would probably give their second preference to the Democrats, yet the morons are too incompetent to even attempt to reform the system to allow for preferential voting.
They simply deserve to lose, until they get it.
But they won't get it, because the electorate is so backward that even the apparently sophisticated chattering classes have no idea what reforms to ask for. Don't understand the choices and are too lazy and stupid to find out.
Its tragic.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas