[EM] Judicial &c. Elections

[Blake Cretney]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 15:53:30 +1000
LAYTON Craig <Craig.LAYTON at add.nsw.gov.au> wrote:

> This is in response to Demorep's plan to hold elections for
everything,
> although I've deleted the original email.
> 
> Unfortunately, without a very strong non-political tradition
attached to
> certain offices, if you make those offices open to election, they
will
> become political, and very likely party-political.    It's a matter
of
> weighing up the benifits of direct election to the consequences of
> politicising an judicial office (or the like).

I'm not sure how a judicial office could be non-political.  The
decisions they make are political, or at least ideological, so it is a
political position.  Of course, you might be able to develop a system
where judges are appointed regardless of their politics.  Similarly,
you might be able to choose Presidents without regard to their
politics.  But the result is that you get someone of random ideology,
not someone who isn't political.

I would prefer that judges took more of an interpretive role, but I
don't see that happening anytime soon.  The Canadian constitution is
really too vague to interpret in a non-political way.  So, I don't
know what it would mean for a supreme court judge, for example, to be
non-political.

> If you desire a non-political executive/president (although the US
system is
> not well designed for this), it should be elected with a 2/3
parliamentary
> (legislative) majority.  Judicial offices can be appointed by the
indirectly
> elected President or majority leader, and if you desire additional
checks
> and balances, you can add a ratification requirement (2/3 of the
> legislature).  The cabinet could follow the same proceedure,
although I
> often think that the appointment of a cabinet is the most delicate
and
> difficult part of designing a political system.  I doubt that anyone
has
> really got it right so far.

I think that a 2/3 requirement would tend to lead to gridlock.  As
well, it seems to give more power to the most stubborn, the people
most willing to shut down government until they get their way.  I'd
prefer just use some modern election method.  My preference is Ranked
Pairs, but others might favour other Condorcet methods or Approval. 
That way you are assured of a result.

I don't like ratification requirements for the same reason, and I
don't think it's wise to have judges owe their positions to one
person.  So, I'd just have the legislature elect all the positions. 
That is also how I would like to see the cabinet elected.  If the
purpose of the cabinet is to distribute executive power, and if
cabinet members are intended to be responsible to the legislature, it
makes sense for each to be elected individually.

Of course, the parliamentary tradition in Canada is that the Prime
Minister appoints cabinet members from the legislature.  Why not just
give the PM briefcases full of money to hand out to legislators for
their obedience?  If you want anything resembling government by a
legislature, and if you don't it's a rather expensive boondogle, the
legislature has to be independent, and that means legislators can't be
given bonuses or positions by the executive branch.

---
Blake Cretney