danivon

Well, one way is to point out that the same thing may work against them and entrench the other party in power later on. But that may just lead to bipartisanship, and a cartel.

Cartel?
You mean duopoly don't you?

hacker

But how? California it was easier to get it done because the people can more or less bypass the constitutional structure of law-making and make it themselves via plebiscite. In most states you can't do that. So how are we going to convince politicians to do something they don't want to, that isn't in the interests of doing so, should they wish to perpetuate their (or their party's) power?

Dysfunctional, right?

rickyp wrote:danivon

Well, one way is to point out that the same thing may work against them and entrench the other party in power later on. But that may just lead to bipartisanship, and a cartel.

Cartel?
You mean duopoly don't you?

A cartel of two, in a 2-party state.

Dysfunctional, right?

Not exactly what one would call an "answer", is it?

Sassenach wrote:The way to do the latter is to create independent boundary commissions with clear mandates to draw up boundaries which make sense and which are not in any way, shape or form influenced by the governing party in whichever state they happen to be based in. It's not hard. The problem you have in the States is that the process is in the hands of the politicians, who have a vested interest in gerrymandering the boundaries to suit themselves. I believe California recently passed a proposition which changed their system to one similar to what I just described, it'll be interesting to see how things work out there over the next few electoral cycles.

Those commissions are still controlled by politicians because who appoints the members of the commissions? The politicians.

arch

Those commissions are still controlled by politicians because who appoints the members of the commissions? The politicians.

Do you consider the Supreme Court to be controlled by politicians or do they make decisions independent of political interference?
A commission can be as independent as SCOTUS.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Sassenach wrote:The way to do the latter is to create independent boundary commissions with clear mandates to draw up boundaries which make sense and which are not in any way, shape or form influenced by the governing party in whichever state they happen to be based in. It's not hard. The problem you have in the States is that the process is in the hands of the politicians, who have a vested interest in gerrymandering the boundaries to suit themselves. I believe California recently passed a proposition which changed their system to one similar to what I just described, it'll be interesting to see how things work out there over the next few electoral cycles.

Those commissions are still controlled by politicians because who appoints the members of the commissions? The politicians.

And yet they manage not to be partisan here.

The Speaker of the House of Commons (who is an MP, but unlike your Speaker moves away from the party whip and is an independent chair of Commons sessions) is the official chair, but in reality a High Court judge sits on regional decision-making meetings. Again, our judges are less political than yours and are selected by judicial bodies.

http://boundarycommissionforengland.ind ... ho-we-are/

We have developed a professional code for public appointments that means a poltician cannot just send a placeman in. http://publicappointmentscommissioner.i ... l-2012.pdf

I think the issue in the USA is that there is a deeper history of political appointments to public offices. At the federal level it was endemic from the time of Jackson through to the early 20th Century, and while is still a feature has been curtailed since 1939's Hatch Act. At a state and local level, however, it seems to be even more entrenched than ever.

Depends on what state you're talking about, Danivon. While there's a lot of truth to that you'd have to be careful to make generalizations.

As far as judges I have often said that a better way to appoint a SC justice would be to require a 2/3 supermajority instead of simple majority to confirm the appointment. Even so the judiciary in the United States is, with some exceptions, pretty independent (again, I said "with some exceptions" so don't be so quick to take me out of context, anybody).

I want to add that I have to agree with you Danivon; your way of redrawing the boundaries, while nothing is fool-proof, is still much better than just letting a state legislature do it (or Martin O'Malley).

JimHackerMP wrote:Depends on what state you're talking about, Danivon. While there's a lot of truth to that you'd have to be careful to make generalizations.

Well, yes all places vary. What's it like in the Democrat fiefdom of Maryland?

As far as judges I have often said that a better way to appoint a SC justice would be to require a 2/3 supermajority instead of simple majority to confirm the appointment. Even so the judiciary in the United States is, with some exceptions, pretty independent (again, I said "with some exceptions" so don't be so quick to take me out of context, anybody).

Well, I would not do it that way at all. Instead of the President (a politician) nominating and Congress (a bunch of politicians) ratifying, why not have nominations from the judiciary apparatus? By all means have a political sign-off to avoid the judiciary being too self-supporting, but not the current way (and yes, I know it's written into the US Constitution).

Our current rules are fine regarding the selection of Supreme Court Justices, I think.It's not effectively a majority due to the filibuster--you need 60 votes. This has the tendency to moderate the justices chosen and helps to ensure they are well-qualified because you're going to need at least some support from the other side . If only a majority vote were needed and the presidency and Senate were controlled by one party then there would be a concern that extreme candidates (and perhaps extreme candidates who were not that well-qualified) would be chosen. The way it is now the process should work to ensure that candidates are well-qualified and whose views are in the mainstream, whether they are liberal or conservative.

In the People's Democratic Republic of Maryland it works pretty much like the federal level, although there are some circuit judges that are elected. No one really "campaigns" like executive/legislative politicians do so ostensibly it's on their merits (one would hope). Also, the judges that are appointed by the governor (with the advice & consent of the state Senate, just as at the federal level) still appear on the ballot every election: "JUDGE SO AND SO--FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS--CONTINUE IN OFFICE? [YES/NO]" so even though the governor/state senate put them in, the people can boot them out for any reason they please. Also, Orphan's Court judges for each county and the City of Baltimore are elected. Again, they don't seem to "campaign" like legislative politicians do. So Maryland is a hybrid of sorts. It's only the federal level where no judges are elected or re-examined by the voters.

Yeah, but Freeman, don't forget, the Nuclear Option was used. Now there can't be filibusters in nominations if the majority party so pleases. Nice idea of the Democrats wasn't it? Especially now that there's a Republican majority in the Senate these days. See how politicians are so short-sighted in this country?

I was thinking wider than the appointment of judges for that Maryland question, Jim.

I have a problem with elected judges as well. Seems a recipe for populism over justice.

What were you thinking then?

I agree about "popular justice" (which is an oxymoron).

Well OK, but I would have to disagree with your assessment. That would give the judicial branch power over itself--which a lot of people bitch about anyway (though I think some of the complaints are exaggerated in that area.)

Better to go with my idea of 2/3. After all, treaties require 2/3, why shouldn't judicial nominations?