A question.

[Bustem' Down]

We elect our Representatives, we elect our Senators and we elect our President. So why is it that we don't elect members to the Judiciary Branch? Just curious, I'm sure there was a reason the founders didn't set it up that way.

 

[SamSpade]

We elect our Representatives, we elect our Senators and we elect our President. So why is it that we don't elect members to the Judiciary Branch? Just curious, I'm sure there was a reason the founders didn't set it up that way.

We didn't even elect Senators until 1913.

As near as I can tell, since the Judiciary was never intended to be representative of the people specifically, the intent of the Constition was that it was sufficient for the Chief Executive to appoint, and for Congress to approve, since the Supreme Court was intended to be a *weak* third part of the government.

However, in many jurisdictions, local judges ARE elected.

 

[Bruzilla]

Good question. Can you just imagine how ugly a Supreme Court Justice election would be?

 

[FromTexas]

We didn't even elect Senators until 1913.

As near as I can tell, since the Judiciary was never intended to be representative of the people specifically, the intent of the Constition was that it was sufficient for the Chief Executive to appoint, and for Congress to approve, since the Supreme Court was intended to be a *weak* third part of the government.

However, in many jurisdictions, local judges ARE elected.

Oh, I know this is true but every time I think about it--->

 

[Bustem' Down]

I just think it's funny that they are appointed by the other branches. Doesn't that seem like a conflict of intrest in the whole checks and balances system.

 

[Spoiled]

I just think it's funny that they are appointed by the other branches. Doesn't that seem like a conflict of intrest in the whole checks and balances system.

Senators and other REPRESENTATIVES change over time... Justices dont, therefor they are not always checking and balancing the same people who gave them power... In addition to that, if they make a decision that is unpopular (removing prayer from school, end segregation....) they dont get unseated... Their job is to do what they feel the constitution says, not please the people...

 

[dems4me]

Senators and other REPRESENTATIVES change over time... Justices dont, therefor they are not always checking and balancing the same people who gave them power... In addition to that, if they make a decision that is unpopular (removing prayer from school, end segregation....) they dont get unseated... Their job is to do what they feel the constitution says, not please the people...

Well put.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Senators and other REPRESENTATIVES change over time... Justices dont, therefor they are not always checking and balancing the same people who gave them power... In addition to that, if they make a decision that is unpopular (removing prayer from school, end segregation....) they dont get unseated... Their job is to do what they feel the constitution says, not please the people...

Ok, that makes sense.

 

[Triggerfish]

we elect our President.

Not 100% true. You may be able to vote for the President but the electoral college makes the final decision.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Not 100% true. You may be able to vote for the President but the electoral college makes the final decision.

Well, fine, if you want to get nit picky....

 

[Triggerfish]

 

[Tinkerbell]

Not 100% true. You may be able to vote for the President but the electoral college makes the final decision.

Exactly, and how do you all feel about the Electoral College?

I think it's an antiquated system. I don't understand why in a state that has, for example, 6 electoral votes, why does the guy with the majority of popular vote get ALL the electoral votes? Let's say one guy gets 60% of the popular vote and another guy gets 40%, shouldn't one get 4 electoral votes and the other guy get the other 2? It just seems like this is more fair and in keeping with the popular vote. Maybe it isn't that simple!

 

[Spoiled]

I think the electoral college out dated, then people didnt have access to the same media and news we have now... or education... now we are all educated and well informed

 

[ylexot]

I think the electoral college out dates, then people didnt have access to the same media and news we have now... or education... now we are all educated and well informed

(you were joking, weren't you?)

 

[vraiblonde]

I don't understand why in a state that has, for example, 6 electoral votes, why does the guy with the majority of popular vote get ALL the electoral votes? Let's say one guy gets 60% of the popular vote and another guy gets 40%, shouldn't one get 4 electoral votes and the other guy get the other 2? It just seems like this is more fair and in keeping with the popular vote.

The electoral vote the way we have it now reflects the popular vote, for the most part. With one or two exceptions, the guy with the most popular votes has always gotten the most electoral votes as well.

You can't elect a President through straight popular vote - can you imagine the corruption and fudging around that would take place? But I'm a big fan of your idea to break it down and give electoral votes by percentage of popular vote in a state instead of winner takes all.

 

[Spoiled]

(you were joking, weren't you?)

half way... the well informed and well educated where italic for a reason

 

[2ndAmendment]

But I'm a big fan of your idea to break it down and give electoral votes by percentage of popular vote in a state instead of winner takes all.

Some states do. It is a state decision.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...In addition to that, if they make a decision that is unpopular (removing prayer from school, end segregation....) they dont get unseated... Their job is to do what they feel the constitution says, not please the people...

They can be impeached just like the President or any other official.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I think the electoral college out dated, then people didnt have access to the same media and news we have now... or education... now we are all educated and well informed

The reason for the electoral college is to prevent large population areas from dominating the elections. If it were not for the electoral college, only California, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida would have to vote. The founders were very wary about that and came up with a smart solution.

 

[Triggerfish]

. If it were not for the electoral college, only California, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida would have to vote.

Don't forget Texas since it's #2 in population.