Electioneering

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Judicial

Term: 18 years (24 years for the Chief Justice)
Requirements: 40 years old, US citizen
Term limit: 1 term

The Supreme Court should be expanded to 15 justices + 2 alternates. Majority vote: 8, abstentions not allowed under any circumstance. For this reason, a 16th and 17th alternate judge would also be elected to decide on a case where a judge would decide to abstain, and they would rule in his stead. This would mean that ALL SC cases would have a vote of 15 voices, without exception. No 15 voices, no ruling, that simple.

Supreme Court Justices, other than the Chief justice, would be allowed to serve a maximum of 18 years, or possibly, 3 presidential terms. The Chief justice would be allowed to serve a maximum of 24 years, or possibly four presidential terms.

Supreme Court judges would be elected, but through a system of lists and then an election. Supreme Court judges would no longer be appointed by the President, nor would they be confirmed by the US Senate.

Someone wanting to be a judge would need to apply. His credentials would then go through a House committee, a Senate committee and then a Presidential committee.

A final list of 60 names would be provided for election day, the voters would select 15 of the 60 names (maximum) and the top 15 vote getters would be elected. Numbers 16 and 17 would be alternate judges. However, the sitting president would get to decide which justice would be the Chief Justice out of those elected to the Supreme Court, and that appointment would be approved by the US Senate. Should a justice leave before the end of his term for any reason, then the next highest vote-getter on the list (that would be nr. 16, for starters) would assume the position.

Judges would be elected in the MIDDLE of a presidential term, in other words, in the election for the House of Representatives. This means that elected Supreme Court justices would likely straddle the terms of two or three presidents.

I would like to note that many nations elect their judges, rather than appointing them.

You’ve obviously put a lot of time, effort, and consideration into this project, it’s both commendable and appreciated.

However…

Your ‘reforms’ concerning the judiciary are comprehensively unacceptable – Federal judges and justices of the Supreme Court should never be elected, and their terms should indeed be for life.

To subject Federal judges and justices to elections and term limits would undermine the rule of law and threaten the very foundation of the Republic, and our civil liberties along with it.

If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78

 

[Shrimpbox]

First of all Stat needs a round of applause for his effort and his good intentions. If everyone put half as much effort as he did on his five posts we would probably not have an election problem. Thanks stat

Having said that I pretty much disagree with most of his points.

I like the idea of changing the primary election into regional affairs, but here is a point. Let's say the west coast gets first dibs and one democrat gets the overwhelming majority of primary votes.( or a republican for that matter) would this so cripple ones opponents that the rest of the primaries would be a forgone conclusion. Also would the way the regions are drawn up would they favor metro areas so much that candidates would only campaign in the cities. Maybe you could set primaries up by alphabetical order 12 at a time for four primaries.

I am not going to bloviate too much in one post cause their is so much to chew on. I am going to come from a different angle. The democrats have shown us that a campaign has to resemble American Idol to be successful. Style is more important than substance. This is not the fault of the constitution or the electoral process, but it has given us the the most mediocre political class in my lifetime as well as a president with no leadership abilities to break political impasses. More on correcting this later.

There should be a box on every ballot that you can check if you do not want any political anything to contact you about elections until one year before an election. Give us a break please.

Anyone who thinks having over a thousand national political office holders is going to be an improvement over the present system is fooling themselves. We have so much dead wood already in the house and senate. Additionally most citizens cant keep up with the the candidates already presented much less thousands more.

Lastly what stat suggests is more of a parliamentary system that would encourage the creation of many more parties and a whole lot more gridlock.

Still stat I tip my hat to you, great job of trying to do something.

 

[Spoonman]

we need term limits. right now we have a stable of old guard in there. half these guys are well past retirement age. no new fresh ideas are getting through. even if you are a bright young star with good ideas and willing to be non partisan, you are shut down b the old school. its poison and congress is locked up as a result. even the supreme court has become partisan. there is no way the court should be allowed to become either too liberal or too conservative. it ceases to become and impartial body. the supreme court is just as partisan as congress. we need to do away with the electoral. 90% of the states are usually decided before the election even starts. it stifles people from getting out to vote. Conservatives in NY or CA say why bother, the state is going blue, and I'm sure liberals in TX say why bother, it's going red. we need to get the vote back in the hands of the people. all the people. Right now the vote comes down to a handful of states and that is where the campaigning is focused. the goal is to win those states to win the election. the dynamic has to be changed so the goal is to win based on what the majority of americans want.

 

[Nosmo King]

The Judicial

Term: 18 years (24 years for the Chief Justice)
Requirements: 40 years old, US citizen
Term limit: 1 term

The Supreme Court should be expanded to 15 justices + 2 alternates. Majority vote: 8, abstentions not allowed under any circumstance. For this reason, a 16th and 17th alternate judge would also be elected to decide on a case where a judge would decide to abstain, and they would rule in his stead. This would mean that ALL SC cases would have a vote of 15 voices, without exception. No 15 voices, no ruling, that simple.

Supreme Court Justices, other than the Chief justice, would be allowed to serve a maximum of 18 years, or possibly, 3 presidential terms. The Chief justice would be allowed to serve a maximum of 24 years, or possibly four presidential terms.

Supreme Court judges would be elected, but through a system of lists and then an election. Supreme Court judges would no longer be appointed by the President, nor would they be confirmed by the US Senate.

Someone wanting to be a judge would need to apply. His credentials would then go through a House committee, a Senate committee and then a Presidential committee.

A final list of 60 names would be provided for election day, the voters would select 15 of the 60 names (maximum) and the top 15 vote getters would be elected. Numbers 16 and 17 would be alternate judges. However, the sitting president would get to decide which justice would be the Chief Justice out of those elected to the Supreme Court, and that appointment would be approved by the US Senate. Should a justice leave before the end of his term for any reason, then the next highest vote-getter on the list (that would be nr. 16, for starters) would assume the position.

Judges would be elected in the MIDDLE of a presidential term, in other words, in the election for the House of Representatives. This means that elected Supreme Court justices would likely straddle the terms of two or three presidents.

I would like to note that many nations elect their judges, rather than appointing them.

You’ve obviously put a lot of time, effort, and consideration into this project, it’s both commendable and appreciated.

However…

Your ‘reforms’ concerning the judiciary are comprehensively unacceptable – Federal judges and justices of the Supreme Court should never be elected, and their terms should indeed be for life.

To subject Federal judges and justices to elections and term limits would undermine the rule of law and threaten the very foundation of the Republic, and our civil liberties along with it.

If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78

I agree. Dipping the judiciary into morass of electioneering isn't going to make them clean. If money is the root of electioneering evils, giving money from vested interests like PACs and Wall Street would taint rulings and give corrupt law the imperamator of judicial enforcement and legitimacy.

 

[TemplarKormac]

For Senators and Representatives, I would make a tweak to the numbers. Instead of the 1,000 representatives, I would standardize the amount to 500 (just 65 more than the 435 we have currently). Or 10 representatives covering 10 distinct districts in their states, regardless of population, meaning equal representation regardless of population. Furthermore, of those 10 representatives, each party would get to vote for 5 of them. Meaning that at no point in time in any state would one party have an advantage over the other. The districts would be drawn to encompass equal portions of the respective state's population, and would remain permanent.

I would keep the 2 year cycle, for 8 years could a senator or representative remain at his position, or four two-year terms. I would outlaw gerrymandering altogether. These districts would not change for any reason whatsoever. Instead of having so many moving parts for the electorate to discern, make the electoral process more static. Many people decide not to vote because of issues like this.

I would actually keep the 100 senators. You would have 2 senators from each state regardless of population size. One Republican, one Democrat; as with representatives, both parties would have a representative they would vote into the Senate. At no point in time would a party hold the advantage in one state or another, or in either house.

All votes would require a 60-40 margin in the Senate, and a minimum of a 275-225 vote in the House to pass any legislation. In my opinion, having 1,000 representatives complicates the electoral process. Having 160 Senators is I feel in excess, and also complicates the electoral process. Personally, I feel all of this number crunching to be unnecessary.

By not allowing one party to have an advantage, it forces them to act for the good of their constituents. I would make it illegal to lie under oath, meaning that a Senator or Representative should set attainable goals for his term in office. Bribery and gift giving for votes will be outlawed. Breaching an oath of office would immediately warrant a 20 year prison term, and a revocation of elected status. I would eliminate arm twisting. I would make a law requiring each member of congress to vote of his own accord, and that accepting bribes, gifts or sweetheart deals would be illegal.

Each Senator and representative would conduct a referendum vote for their respective state, so as to assess the pertinent issue at hand at that current time, and bring this issue to the attention to the governor, and eventually to the President himself.


As for elections, I feel the electoral college should be eliminated. The presidency should determined by a straight up and down popular vote. A term should constitute 8 years instead of two four year terms. A runoff would constitute a result of 50.5% to 49.5% result (including Vice President). If either candidate fails to attain 51% of the vote, a minimum of 1 runoff would occur. Should the margin fail to exceed 51% for either candidate once again , the house should elect elect the president, confirmation would require a supermajority vote of 301-199. Given that, you would force everyone to think hard about the person(s) they put in the White House.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And Stat, this is one hell of a post you made here. I commend you for putting your back into it.

 

[Barb]

Liberals complain that voter suppression is happening. Conservatives complain that there is voter fraud. Both sides have some very valid complaints.

I disagree with this. It is all well and fine (as well as academically sound) to acknowledge and answer every argument, but it is technically incorrect to give every argument the same weight of legitimacy if they do not, in fact, equal out.

 

[Barb]

I would expect that we could have a lively discussion as to why I propose this idea.

Gerrymandering would never ever happen again.

Yes! and to most of the rest, including term limits and:

Senators would be elected ALL AT ONCE for 6 year terms

But

The US Senate should be enhanced by all former US Presidents and Vice-Presidents still living

is troubling, even as a volunteer post, as there is too much possibility for conflict of interests between whatever business, board, trust, etc...that they may be involved in or profiting from.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Interesting ideas. (Insert your preferred Deity here) knows SOMEthing needs to change.

I firmly believe, however, that any changes like those above are going to become just another game of corruption for the well-to-do to play unless we first start with a fair and simple tax code, and public budgets that are balanced by law.

As long as politicians have the power to customize the tax code for friends, supporters and those who're willing to pay for special treatment, it matters little how we choose them, big money will purchase corrupting influence because of the potential for avoiding the paying of a fair tax for years.

Same thing with balancing public budgets. As long as politicians have the power to spend money that they are unwilling or unable to collect from their current constituencies in the form of deficit spending, it matters little how those politicians are chosen.

There are symptoms and there are diseases. Right now, the disease is corruption and everyone seems to want to treat the symptoms. Our politicians obviously can't handle the power to customize taxes and to deficit spend without giving in to the corrupting influence of the well-heeled, so those powers need to be removed first, then we can discuss the modernization of our election processes.

Just my 2 cents...

I share many of your thoughts, but pols are also being forced to play into such a system in the first place in order to get elected. Break the cycle, break the habit.

Who in their right mind would give millions to a campaign knowing that such a donation would have ZERO effect on the tax obligation of the giver.

Limiting the ability of an American to give to political campaigns is not the answer, the answer is limiting the influence those donations can purchase.

It limits the ability to give only in term of the time frame, not in term of the amount of dollars.

 

[Statistikhengst]

You put a lot of thought into those posts, Stat. Brava for your patience and common sense.

With that said...will anything ever come of your ideas and suggestions? Probably not in my lifetime.
I am not "as in" to politics as most here...all I know is, the electoral vote thing SUCKS. We in california are still at the polls and the president is already known before we can even place our vote. That stinks. So it doesn't really matter WHO I want to vote for. It wouldn't count.

Well, actually, in 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012 the call for the President was either when the polls closed or somewhat after:

2000, December 13
2004, the day after the election at around 3 pm EDT
2008, 11:00 pm EDT
2012 11:18 pm EDT

Also, in 1992, Clinton went over the top at 10:58 pm EDT.

True, in 1996, he was called at 9:25 pm as the polls on the West Coast and beyond were still open.

Thanks for the kind words

 

[Statistikhengst]

I read most of it....didn't see anything about re-districting...is that something you plan to address?

Right at the top of posting number 2:

With redistricting done at a national level with a Super-Computer with only three parameters:

-State borders
-population
-geography and „logical connectivity“

A computer, rather than the statehouses, would set the congressional district boundaries. Race, gender, age, social status and partisan breakdown would play no role in the drawing of congressional boundaries, but geographical obstacles would. For instance, if at all possible, a district would not be drawn with a mountain chain splitting it into two halves. Additionally, Gerrymandering would never ever happen again. And for this reason, the Census should be changed from a once in a decade occurence to always be set to be one year before a Presidential election year. More on this in Election Rules and timelines

 

[Statistikhengst]

on some great ideas and responses from GW and GT too.

I tagged some additional members whom I believe could make some excellent contributions. (Used the [Tag Users] function at the top since that is what it is for.)

Some of what you suggest is going to require Constitutional Amendments and that means that this is going to be difficult to implement. Not impossible, but harder than necessary. Overall I agree that we are way overdue for a complete overhaul.

My suggestions actually piggyback on the concept of voter involvement in elections via the internet and using unique ids similar to SSNs.

1. Compulsory voting for all citizens. Doesn't matter if you vote for Mickey Mouse but you must cast a ballot. This eliminates parties having to focus on "turnout". If everyone must vote then turnout becomes a non-issue.

2. Voting via the Internet is something that needs to done sooner rather than later. Yes, it is feasible and it eliminates the BS about long waiting lines and voting hours and all the rest of the ways that politicians are using to mess with voting rights. If we trust the internet to make credit card purchases (sometimes for thousands of dollars) then why can't we have a similar secure system for voting? Eliminates weather concerns too. Best of all counting electronic votes can be tallied in seconds and there are no "hanging chads" and other nonsense. Polls close and vote counts are known nationwide.

3. Allow permanent residents to vote in non Federal and non State wide elections. These are taxpayers too and since their taxes pay local municipal taxes and for schools it only makes sense that they should be allowed to enter the electoral process in this manner. (BTW this is already allowed in some states.) This is all part and parcel of greater involvement in the process rather than less.

Right now part of what is messing up the system is the deliberate and malicious process of driving voters away. A vote lost for your opponent is a vote gained for yourself. If voting becomes compulsory the incentive to drive away voters falls away (and so does the money to make that happen.)

The use of the Internet for voting eliminates the excuse for not voting. Every place that offers WiFi now becomes a potential polling station. College dorms, coffee shops, libraries, shopping malls and yes, in the comfort of your own home. Once again greater involvement across all registered voters means that trying to appeal on single issues to drive "turnout" becomes a non issue and again, it undercuts the benefit of outside funding.

Internet voting doesn't require a constitutional amendment. It can be implemented sooner rather than later and it makes the most sense to begin here because it will increase voter turnout simply because it makes it easier. It also increases voting in primary elections which are notorious for low turnout. This can eliminate a subset of the voters being able to restrict the choices of the greater electorate.

Anything that increases involvement in the election process means a democracy where votes count more than dollars. That is where we must begin in my opinion.

All interesting ideas, all of which I have also considered.

Compulsory voting already exists in these lands:

Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Cyprus, Ecuador, Fiji, Greece, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mexico, Nauru, Peru, Singapore, Turkey and Uruguay.

I am researching right now how effective this is. Until I have some firm data, I can't say much.

Each one of those lands has some form of penalty for non-voting. Not sure if that is the way to go.

Germany has non-compulsory voting, and yet, voter turnout is usually 80%.

I do not believe that permanent residents should be allowed to vote. If they really want to vote, then they should apply for US-American citizenship.

Voting per internet will occur one day, but this will require a national ID system, which many Conservatives bawk at. Some people have already bandied about the idea of using the SSN as ID, but I want to mention again that this is currently illegal to do under US law.

And yes, of course, most all of what I am proposing would require either a constitutional amendment or better yet, a Constitutional Convention.

My ONLY goal is to make elections cleaner, more efficent, less costly and also to increase the actual time spent governing rather than being worried about the next election.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I read most of it....didn't see anything about re-districting...is that something you plan to address?

There was mention in one of the openers decrying the practice of Gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering sucks.

Yes, it does. It is time for Gerrymandering to go forever, which is exactly what redistricting using only a super-computer and the three parameters I stated would do.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I don't agree that making wholesale changes to the constitution is the right way to go. Neither do I think that this is the fault of the voter. Restricting access to the polls by elaborate ID measures answer a problem we do not have, namely voter fraud.

The problem as I see it is the money. Money spent on ads and campaigns. If contributions from individuals AND corporations was restricted to a three digit number, we could eliminate checkbook politics.

Perhaps it's the length of the campaign that makes the money so needed. If we had one national day for primaries, in May perhaps, and a national moratorium on campaigning until early August, long drawn out budgets for media buys would dry up and take the cash with them.

Yes, adressed under rules in posting number 5.

A timeline that shortens the campaigns and also shortens the amount of fundraising time.

 

[Statistikhengst]

On the executive section, I disagree with the ideas.

As I've said, I'm against term limits. Even our current 2 term limitation on presidents is something I disagree with. I do understand how a 1 term limit might prevent further campaigning once in office, though.

I dislike the tying of a presidential election to senate seats and governors. I think that is a terrible idea. It is giving the voters even fewer choices. If you think you have a great president but a terrible senator or governor, you cannot vote that way. You have to keep one official in office in order to keep the other. It also too closely ties state elections to federal elections.

On the judicial section, I also tend to disagree.

I find the logic of keeping the final arbiters of our laws outside the direct influence of public opinion strong. That layer of insulation against a tyranny of the majority, while it is far from perfect, I think is important. The SCOTUS should be as objective as possible. I realize that there is already strong feeling that our justices are very partisan, but I don't think having them elected will improve that situation.

Perhaps, if a change must be made, a better plan would be to have the president select a certain number of candidates and then the Senate decides which they prefer (assuming they are willing to allow any to serve). I'm not certain if that could work, I'm simply leery of elected Supreme Court justices.

I think it is a terrific idea, for it allows a president the chance, in the case of a wave election, to bring in a Senate that is likely majority for his party and therefore the chances increase that he can push through the platform upon which he campaigned. Also, the extension of three years, when also applied to the Senate, means that that same senate stays with him. The statistical probability of many presidents applying for an receiving an extension with a 62% hurdle to overcome is already slim at best.

The voters DO have a choice: every six years for President and for Senators.

I am not sure we need more choice. We need more stability.

Surely everyone can agree that a President serving for 6 instead of four years automaticall means 2 more years in-between without any campaigning except for the HOR.


As far as the judicial, Japan and Switzerland elect their judges. Oh, and the USA, outside of the Supreme Court. In fact, most all of our judges are already elected.

 

[Statistikhengst]

We can tackle it in as organized fashion as you approached the topic … Little pieces at a time.
At no time should it be misconstrued that I believe your ideas are not thoughtful and well intended.
I will start where you started … Legislative.

House of Representatives

As far as increasing the number of Representatives in attempts to more closely represent the current population level … I don't see an immediate problem with that.
There may be concerns more on the logistic rather than governing level as arrangements would need to be made for obviously more representatives and staff than what currently exists.

Term limits could be handled in a much more traditional and balanced manner.
Keep the terms the traditional two years and limit them to 4 terms.
Where some people would prefer shorter term limits … That would open the door to additional corruption.
If the maximum terms were too short … Then the representatives would soon become puppets of the handlers who walk them through the process of orientation and governmental procedures.

If you still want to include the “alternate” option anyway … Whoever came in second in the primary could hold that position.
If there was no one running against the elected representative from their party in the primary … Then the elected representative should be allowed to choose their alternate at large prior to the general election.

Comments about redistricting and the absence of gerrymandering are worthy and understandable.
Any number of arrangements could be made to ensure the redistricting was done with some fairness … But with the intent to keep individual district concerns both local and accurately representative.
No attempts should be made to segment any particular area in regards to establishing any kind of desired equality.
If a district is 95% white upper middle class … Then it is representative of its own interests.
If attempts are made to dilute that percentage in favor of balance … Then you are jeopardizing an actual representation of the district.

Senate

Ditch the idea of a messing with the number of Senators for each State … That is not the purpose of the Senate.
The Senate is what ensures the interests of one state do not outweigh the interests of another state.
Accurate representation can be handled in the House of Representatives where legislation should start in the first place … And the Senate should be kept equal to ensure the legislation does not unfairly benefit one state or region over another.

Extreme example just to show what I mean …

If the states on the West and East Coast decided to pass legislation that taxed corn crops produced in the Midwest and Plains Regions without substantial representation in the Senate to combat the move … Abuse could occur.

I wouldn't rule out the addition of two more Senators per state for better representation per each district.
I would suggest that the number be able to support an equal split at all times … Although I understand your concerns about gridlock.

Gridlock is not a bad thing (I am a Conservative) … Because it indicates the desire to do something correctly more than the desire just to do something.
If any measure cannot draw the appropriate amount of support to receive bi-partisan cooperation … Then it deserves a quick and thorough death.
I don't live in a dream world where I think the perfect idea would be to require a two thirds vote for every measure.
I do think that such a requirement would eliminate the ability of Congress members blaming others in their party (or their opposing party/parties) for actions or the lack thereof … And help hold each member more accountable for their actions.

Qualifications … You left out the fact that they need to actively reside in the district they are representing when elected.
National Senators … Forget it as part of the actual Senate … Perhaps they could serve as an advisory committee in a certain capacity … But not as voting members of the Senate.

.

#


You made some brilliant and thoughtful responses!!

Legislative: yes, we would need more office space, no doubt.

The entire idea of moving the term for a Rep from 2 to 3 years (which was the original proposal at the Constitutional Convention and 2 years became the compromise) is to increase the amount of time governing before having to campaign again. It is also 1/2 of 6 years and fits well into a presidential term of 6 years.

In other words, we would be going from a 2 and 4 year cycle to a 3 and 6 year cycle.

I don't see how term limits leads to corruption, but we have more than ample evidence that staying decades long in the HOR and the Senate has often led to massive corruption.

I like your idea about the alternate, but then again, it is not necessarily conclusive that the two people would agree with each other or get along. Plus, in a jungle primary situation, this could mean that the alternate to a GOP candidate could be Democrat, or visa versa.

Redistrticting: exactly for the reasons you listed, a Supercomputer with only the three parameters I listed would do the job. In this way, human bias would be out of the equation.

The Problem with the Senate is that the the idea of eliminating the "Tryanny of the Majority" has actually become a tool for tryanny of the minority.

At the time of the founding of the Republic, the largest state, Virginia, was only 10 times larger than Delaware. Now, California is 61 times larger than Wyoming. It is absolutely ridiculous that 2 Senators from Wyoming should in essence carry 61 times more electoral firepower than the 2 Senators from California.

Even with a changed Senate, the smallest states would still have disproportionately more firepower in the Senate, but less than at current time.


I like your comments about gridlock.

Gridlock can SOMETIMES be effective, but it should not be the A and O of governance, and at the moment, it is.

You are right: I forgot to mention that a person must be a resident of the district from which he is to be elected. That should of course be so and it should be enshrined in law.

I really like the idea of the National Senators for a number of reasons:

We pay Presidents a lot of money for the 4-8 years in which they currently serve. Ditto Vice-Presidents. The Presidents' / Vice-Presidents' club is one of the most exclusive in the world. Whether or not you like them or are/we in agreement with their policies, Presidents have a lot to offer once they have left office, and G-d knows we paid them a major fee while they were in office.

Take George H. W. Bush, for example, the president with arguably the longest and most impressive resume of any president in our history:

-Rep
-Ambassador
-Senator
-Head of the CIA
-Vice-President
-President

In that man is knowledge and experience that would be good for every member of the Senate.

Most presidents have gone on to utter quietness and almost obscurity after leaving office. I am sure that part of their reason for this is to allow the next President to govern without having any shadow of the former President over his shoulder.

But imagine how helpful it would have been in a divisive Senate of 1962 had Eisenhower also been there to give input.....

I really, really like the idea of National Senators. I think it would be good for our Union as a whole.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The Judicial

Term: 18 years (24 years for the Chief Justice)
Requirements: 40 years old, US citizen
Term limit: 1 term

The Supreme Court should be expanded to 15 justices + 2 alternates. Majority vote: 8, abstentions not allowed under any circumstance. For this reason, a 16th and 17th alternate judge would also be elected to decide on a case where a judge would decide to abstain, and they would rule in his stead. This would mean that ALL SC cases would have a vote of 15 voices, without exception. No 15 voices, no ruling, that simple.

Supreme Court Justices, other than the Chief justice, would be allowed to serve a maximum of 18 years, or possibly, 3 presidential terms. The Chief justice would be allowed to serve a maximum of 24 years, or possibly four presidential terms.

Supreme Court judges would be elected, but through a system of lists and then an election. Supreme Court judges would no longer be appointed by the President, nor would they be confirmed by the US Senate.

Someone wanting to be a judge would need to apply. His credentials would then go through a House committee, a Senate committee and then a Presidential committee.

A final list of 60 names would be provided for election day, the voters would select 15 of the 60 names (maximum) and the top 15 vote getters would be elected. Numbers 16 and 17 would be alternate judges. However, the sitting president would get to decide which justice would be the Chief Justice out of those elected to the Supreme Court, and that appointment would be approved by the US Senate. Should a justice leave before the end of his term for any reason, then the next highest vote-getter on the list (that would be nr. 16, for starters) would assume the position.

Judges would be elected in the MIDDLE of a presidential term, in other words, in the election for the House of Representatives. This means that elected Supreme Court justices would likely straddle the terms of two or three presidents.

I would like to note that many nations elect their judges, rather than appointing them.

You’ve obviously put a lot of time, effort, and consideration into this project, it’s both commendable and appreciated.

However…

Your ‘reforms’ concerning the judiciary are comprehensively unacceptable – Federal judges and justices of the Supreme Court should never be elected, and their terms should indeed be for life.

To subject Federal judges and justices to elections and term limits would undermine the rule of law and threaten the very foundation of the Republic, and our civil liberties along with it.

If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78

And yet, most states elect their judges. In this world, the country that elects the most judges already is: the USA.

 

[Barb]

Supreme Court judges would no longer be appointed by the President, nor would they be confirmed by the US Senate.

That would remove a ton of time spent on petty bickering and revenge right there, and term limits are a refreshing idea.

While the judiciary being more responsible to a broader segment of the population they interperate and write the laws to protect or punish is a more democratic approach than what we have now, how do we educate the electorate about who they're voting for without the need for them to campaign?

 

[Statistikhengst]

First of all Stat needs a round of applause for his effort and his good intentions. If everyone put half as much effort as he did on his five posts we would probably not have an election problem. Thanks stat

Having said that I pretty much disagree with most of his points.

I like the idea of changing the primary election into regional affairs, but here is a point. Let's say the west coast gets first dibs and one democrat gets the overwhelming majority of primary votes.( or a republican for that matter) would this so cripple ones opponents that the rest of the primaries would be a forgone conclusion. Also would the way the regions are drawn up would they favor metro areas so much that candidates would only campaign in the cities. Maybe you could set primaries up by alphabetical order 12 at a time for four primaries.

I am not going to bloviate too much in one post cause their is so much to chew on. I am going to come from a different angle. The democrats have shown us that a campaign has to resemble American Idol to be successful. Style is more important than substance. This is not the fault of the constitution or the electoral process, but it has given us the the most mediocre political class in my lifetime as well as a president with no leadership abilities to break political impasses. More on correcting this later.

There should be a box on every ballot that you can check if you do not want any political anything to contact you about elections until one year before an election. Give us a break please.

Anyone who thinks having over a thousand national political office holders is going to be an improvement over the present system is fooling themselves. We have so much dead wood already in the house and senate. Additionally most citizens cant keep up with the the candidates already presented much less thousands more.

Lastly what stat suggests is more of a parliamentary system that would encourage the creation of many more parties and a whole lot more gridlock.

Still stat I tip my hat to you, great job of trying to do something.

We have what you call "dead wood" in the HOR because those people are representing an impossible number of people.

There is also the sydrome of "the other guy is nuts, but I like my guy". Though most complain, esp. about the HOR, most people actually like the guy from THEIR district. To them, the problem is always in someone elses backyard.

As far as Primaries, I also considered that and that could be a possiblity. But the entire idea is to remove the hometeam advantage for anyone. Not knowing that one starts in Iowa and New Hampshire automatically, but rather, must wait until the lottery spits out a region, is the healthier way to go. And every one of those regions has both larger and smaller states. Well, the blue Sky Area could also have Texas, I suppose.

Also, as far as the danger of the knockout blow, exactly for this reason, a one month pause between primary 2 and primary 3.

Sticking to geographic zones means far less criss-crossing of the Union to campaign, which means saved time, money and energy.

And it also discourages candidates from embracing policies that favor only one region. What plays well in Mississippi should also play well in Washington state.

But the other idea would be a lottery with 51 balls, and the first 12 or 13 balls would be region 1, and so forth. That would then bring jetsetting across the nation back into play, but I think the idea could be workable.

But now matter what, the primary season needs to start later and it needs to be more compact.


The bolded: your opinion, which I respect, but do not share. The problem, imo, is not with American Idol, it is with a structural flaw within the system.

I am not sure that my suggestions lead to a more parliamentary system, if you are thinking of such systems in Europe, but I will point out that those systems are NOT gridlocked at all.

 

[Barb]

The month of July and the first three weeks of August would be open for General Election fundraising. Official begin of the general election season: Labor Day.

coupled with

-All pacs, polling and advertising for candidates would be illegal until New Years Day of election year.

gives big money a 7 month lead on the short pocketed crowd.

Voter ID is a ridiculous giveaway to a manufactured (out of whole cloth!) "problem."