Despite the overwhelming critics, Texas remains one of several states that keep supporting the concept of partisan judicial elections, where voters cast a straight-ticket vote. In fact, electing judges by the public leads to a number of ethical problems which necessarily require compromise between judicial integrity and independence. Most of the allegations of wrong-doing have caused a number of professional and citizen groups to become disaffected with the existing system.
A direct consequence of partisan elections is extremely referred to the limited variation in the share of the vote delivered by judicial candidates. Thus, the majority of Texas judges are elected in accordance with their legal qualifications and not with their own campaign
…show more content…
The type of elections is widely criticized for delivering less qualified results, considering the fact that the public does not have enough information on judicial candidates and their qualifications. Furthermore, judicial candidates are not allowed to take stands on controversial issues or specific cases in accordance with the Judicial Code of Conduct (Corriher, 2012).
First, partisan primaries are referred to judicial candidates, who support one of interest groups, while judges with expensive judicial races totally depend on special interests giving the opportunity to be reelected. Consequently, there is more partisanship on the bench, possessing a dominance of conservative and liberal factions. Thus, partisan judicial elections lead to more campaign cash involved into the process, while a court with the justices’ votes remains divided along the party lines (Corriher, 2012).
Second, partisan judicial elections influence the quality of jurists. High rates by a bar association have no impact on candidate’s chances to win. In addition, the quality of judicial candidates influences their vote share and chances to win in partisan elections (Texas politics,
As a result, more states vie for earlier primaries to claim a greater influence in the
The Electoral College is an outdated and unrealistic arrangement that caters to eighteenth century federalist America in a way that is detrimental to modern democracy. The electoral college gives too much power to the government, overlooks equal representation, and creates loopholes that do not serve to help America thrive.
The candidates will have a better chance of getting elected.
There are many potential benefits and disadvantages to electing judges to Texas’ highest courts. The decision to elect judges is an interesting one. On the positive side, the Texas Judges are always in tune with what is going on in Texas currently. It keeps faces fresh and forces them to make the decisions that the people want by way of laws rules and state morals. It also holds the party ideals that many Texans want accountable. This is one of the common complaints about the United States Supreme Court. The complaint is that many Supreme Court justices are out of touch with what the people want. That they are not held accountable for their findings within each court case. Texas aims to stop this with elections every six years. The downside to this election based court justices is the same answer as to the benefits. They are forced to be in tune with what Texans want which is not necessarily the best for all Texas citizens particularly minorities. Texas judges cannot make unpopular decisions and expect to keep their job. So even if it might be the “right” decision, it is not necessarily the decision the Texas courts might come
... outweigh this potential (but not proven) appearance of corruption. The real potential for corruption is related to direct contributions. However, the Court has imposed checks on this aspect of elections. It seems that any proposed system, even the current one, could be targeted as allowing for corruption, or for a disproportionate influence, or for a limitation on free speech. The important thing, therefore, is that the courts balance all these potential harms for the sake of protecting the democratic process and the First Amendment. The current system places checks in the areas where corruption is the most likely, and allows for the most expression in the areas where corruption is minimal at best. This gives citizens the great ability to influence elections and critically discuss candidates, while ensuring that politicians are accountable for their actions.
In William Hudson’s book, American Democracy in Peril, he writes about different “challenges” that play a vital role in shaping the future of the United States. One is the problem of the “imperial judiciary”. Hudson defines its as that the justice system in the United States has become so powerful that it is answering and deciding upon important policy questions, questions that probably should be answered by our democratic legislatures. Instead of having debates in which everyone’s voices are heard and are considered in final decision-making process, a democratic-like process; we have a single judge or a small group of judges making decisions that effect millions of citizens, an “undemocratic” process. Hudson personally believes the current state of judicialized politics is harming policy decisions in Americans. According to him, the judicial branch is the “least democratic branch”, and ...
In the Electoral College system, every state has one electoral vote for each congressman and senator. Congressman is allotted by population and every state has two senators, so Rhode Island, which has basically nobody in it, has three electoral votes. California, with 53 representatives and two senators, has 55 electoral votes. The states choose electors and the electors meet in what is called the Electoral College to pick a president. In practice, nearly every state has passed a law that the electors will all vote for the popular vote winner in their state, but as the Supreme Court said in Bush v. Gore, the people of the United States do not have a constitutional right to pick the president. A state could, if it felt like it, select the electors
One of those disadvantages is that people cannot be certain that an elected candidate will be the better judge. Judges should be appointed based on their legal training, education, and experience. People often times do not take into account those issues of a judge. They simply vote in the best politician based upon that candidate’s presentation and politics. Another issue is campaign contributions given to candidates during election times. Many people see this as “buying a judge”. If that candidate is given large sums of money from a donor to help his election, then if elected, that judge will feel obligated to rule in that donor’s favor. Elected judges may not be more qualified than their opponent. But because they can raise more money, then they are elected easily. Furthermore, once a judge has won an election, the judge becomes indebted to the corporations and/or unions that contributed to his or her
The electoral system in Canada has been utilized for over a century, and although it has various strengths which have helped preserve the current system, it also has glaringly obvious weaknesses. In recent years, citizens and experts alike have questioned whether Canada’s current electoral system, known as First Past the Post (FPTP) or plurality, is the most effective system. Although FPTP is a relatively simple and easy to understand electoral system, it has been criticized for not representing the popular vote and favouring regions which are supportive of a particular party. FPTP does have many strengths such as simplicity and easy formation of majority governments, however, its biggest drawback is that it does not proportionally represent
Certainly, there is less coordination between political parties as well as between the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. This political trend in Congress and many bills are still passed with bipartisan support in the U.S. In addition, political polarization “can refer to the divergence of political attitudes to ideological extremes” (“Polarization (politics)).” It means that polarization is the similar meaning of divergence on a broad range of issues or set of beliefs. This may occur at the same time or independently of each other on the same issues within the party-in-government, party-as-organization, media, or public. Therefore, as long as judicial system is not affected by the implications of political polarization, the U.S. policy may not be big differences if Congress were less
Judicial reforms in Texas have called for implementation strategies since late 1970’s. Before then Texas was a nonpartisan in terms of judicial election with the democratic being the only party that was winning seats in the region. Later in the early 1980’s, the spirit of bipartisan began when the governor under the Republican Party was overwhelmingly elected and later supported bipartisanship in judiciary (Champagne 68)
Certain candidates will get elected rather than other candidates due to them having more education, better campaign resources provided, money, benefactors, wealth, etc. Also there is also intentionally improper districting which leads to improper representation, and huge advantages to certain
The United States is in a tough position as far as politics go, there is a massive hindrance in the form of political parties. For many years now there has been a two party system, this has never been a good idea nor has it really worked. The ideas of the people haven’t been completely represented, there has been issues with getting necessary bills passed, and there is the issue of people not really knowing what a candidate stands for just what the party stands for. All of these issues, need to be changed and the only way to do so is to start and abolish the party system.
As the United States of America gets older, so does the presidential election voting system. The argument to change this method of voting has been becoming more and more popular as the years go on. It has been said that the Framers of the Constitution came up with this method because of the bad transportation, communication, and they feared the public’s intelligence was not suitable for choosing the President of the United States. Others say that the Framers made this method because they feared that the public did not receive sufficient information about candidates outside of their state to make such a decision based on direct popular vote. My research on this controversial issue of politics will look into the factors into why the Electoral College exists and if it is possibly outdated for today’s society. It will look into the pros and cons of this voting system, and it will explore the alternative methods of voting such as the Direct Popular vote. Many scholarly authors have gathered research to prove that this voting system is outdated and it does not accurately represent the national popular will. Many U.S. citizens value their vote because they only get one to cast towards the candidate of their choice in the presidential election. Based on the Electoral College system their vote may possibly not be represented. Because of today’s society in the U.S. the Electoral College should be abolished because it is not necessary to use a middle-man to choose our president for us. It is a vote by the people, all of us having one voice, one vote.
The significant impact Robert Dahl’s article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker” created for our thought on the Supreme Court it that it thoroughly paved the way towards exemplifying the relationship between public opinion and the United States Supreme Court. Dahl significantly was able to provide linkages between the Supreme Court and the environment that surrounds it in order for others to better understand the fundamental aspects that link the two together and explore possible reasoning and potential outcomes of the Court.