posted
This a cautionary tale. I don't think that people should vote this way, but I'm just going to lay it out, and figure out how to fix my habits for next time.
For the first time, I voted in Chicago, and the experience was a bit disconcerting. All my candidates lost, which doesn't bother as much as the circumstances of the election themselves. The most important race decided yesterday was probably for Cook County President. Billions of dollars goes through the office, and the president is a guy by the name of Stroger. Nice enough guy, but he has been in the job for twenty years, and that is just too long for any man in such a position to survive without accruing too many dubious political debts, between outright corruption and woeful inefficiency, he needed to go. To an alarming degree, there is a significant portion of the city with a material interest in keeping him in his position. Almost enough to give him a numerical advantage.
Then there is a kid running for state treasurer whose only experience was working for dad's bank. There was something kind of smirky about him to boot. I voted against him, and he won. It's possible that I am wrong. It's likely that I'm wrong. My reasons were petty, but the man seemed as though he were all money and no message.
Lastly, there a plucky plucky man named Philip Jackson. It is a shame he didn't win. I saw him campaigning. Big on education, which I appreciate, and he had a huge heart. I thought about volunteering for him and I contributed some money out of respect for his hustling. He was trounced.
Then we have the judges, and there were a lot of them. Now I think that I'm am just a hair more informed than the average voter, but I had no right to pick these judges. There seemed to be twenty different races and there is just no safe way to discern between them. I hadn't recieved any candidates statements so it's really just a guess.
My friend Nate said, "Just do what I do, vote for the white guy and get it over with."
Usually, I just vote against the incumbent if I don't know, but the Chicago ballot doesn't mark incumbent and then, if it is a legislative race, I vote for the woman, but that doesn't work in judicial races because there are so many hoops to jump through get your name on the ballot, that by the time women are eligible, they seem to be hand-picked for their viciousness. The same can be said with ethnic names. And every bench position had someone with an obviously Irish name running for it, and I have some friends who are third and fourth generation Irish lawyers in town telling me how positions are kept in the family, so I did what I hate doing, I left the judicial ballot blank.
Why is it a good idea to have judges popularly elected?
posted
It is probably a better idea than having judges appointed by a body elected by maybe 1% of the population, as was the case in the England that the US revolted against. I get the impression that the US has a lot of institutions like that : Formed as a reaction against some really aristocratic traditions in England, but not actually very well suited to modern conditions. You should do what the European countries do and have a revolution every fifty years or so; sure, the streets run with blood, but at least it clears up the laws a bit.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Formed as a reaction against some really aristocratic traditions in England, but not actually very well suited to modern conditions.
Federal judges are appointed. In the original Constitution, they were selected by a person who was not subject to direct election (the President) and approved by a body not subject to direct election (the Senate).
38 states elect their judges; I believe this started in the mid 1800s, not as a direct response to severing ties with England.
Either way, it sucks.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM, I'm not sure that's what you want. According to the media, only right wing nutjobs own guns, so they'd probably win.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did Claypool actually beat out Stroger???? Last I heard it was still 52/48 in favor of the incumbent with 15% not yet counted.
As for the judges, I think that so few people have actual knowledge of any particular judge (outside of attorneys, that is) that the system there is also flawed. Pretty much the only time I hear about a judge's decisions is when the bosses are talking in the office or when something big hits the news, like the woman who was recently held in contempt of court for refusing to watch a video of herself being sexually assaulted as a teenager. And oh do I wish I lived in Cook County so I could vote no on THAT jerk...
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here in SC we don't vote on the judges, that I know of, but we do vote for the School district board, which I think is great. But for the most part no one has any information on any of the candidates. The only reason I knew anything was because my father works for the district.
My rant... This past election there were several people who ran and got elected for the sole reason of not liking the District Super Attendant. Never mind that he consistently produced some of the best schools in the state. They promptly fired him even though the majority of people at the hearings were for keeping him and they had to buy out his contract, costing the district lots of $$$. They also fired a black principle for no apparent reason quickly catching lots of heat from the media. They have stopped the district from building a couple of new schools because they didn’t want to spend the $$$, so now our classrooms will be overcrowded.
The bad thing about it, by the time the next election rolls around everyone will have forgotten about it and will vote for who ever manages to get the most signs in front of the polls, or has the nicest sounding name, or whatever...
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hear a lot about how bad it is to vote on judges and certain other kinds of offices, but would it be so much of a problem if there were simply some qualifications written into the law? Say, law degrees, an amount of experience depending on the post in question, and so forth?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The judiciary is so important, and there were so many positions to fill and so many candidates. When you put a judge someone on the bench, in a meaningful way, you are informing the life of everyone who may go before the judge, or even anyone thinking about filing an appeal. Me trying to play pin the tail on the donkey with the ballot left me really uneasy.
quote:I hear a lot about how bad it is to vote on judges and certain other kinds of offices, but would it be so much of a problem if there were simply some qualifications written into the law? Say, law degrees, an amount of experience depending on the post in question, and so forth?
I don't think anyone who opposes election of judges is primarily concerned about qualifications.
My concern is that judges deal with specific decision-making, whereas legislators and, to a lesser extent, executives deal with general decision-making. Legislators do make some specific decisions, and executives more, but they are supposed to be expressing the will of the people in the formation and execution of law.
The judiciary is supposed to be interpreting and applying those laws to specific fact patterns. I question the ability to have fair due process from someone who must consider the popularity of the policy outcome of a particular decision.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Carver, similar issues here with the school board, though we're on the happier side of it now, as the worst of them is gone. In 16 years, we haven't passed a school levy or bond. The old levy was about to expire when it came up for election again last month... and by a margin of 18 votes, it passed its required supermajority. All this no thanks to the former school board member who was campaigning actively against it.
I don't even have kids in the public schools, and I thought it was a total no-brainer to vote for. In 16 years, this area has probably tripled in population (and continues to grow very quickly due to climbing housing costs in nearby Seattle), yet no new schools could be built, nor could existing schools be upgraded. Our single high school is the most populous and overpopulated in the state. I mean, duh.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my entire history of vote-casting, I have never picked a winner for major office. When the primaries roll around, I consider all the primary candidates, and, as soon as I throw my support behind one, that candidate immediately falls out of the running.
I used to vote in the primary elections, until I gave up my major party affiliation. Now, I will support a promising primary candidate, but I no longer vote in the primaries.
My party doesn't hold primaries. They have never even advanced their own candidate in any election. (I'm a Shvestercrat.)
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, several of the newly elected board members no longer have kids in the schools and don't want their taxes going up. Of course if you build a really good school people with kids will move into the area and increase the tax base. I don't have any children, but I am all for doing the best job we can educating our kids, even if that means I have slightly higher local taxes.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also voted for the first time this year, and was very upset at the wording of some of the items on the ballot. My town has some very heated arguments (and stupid ones) going on. (Like whether or not this family should allow their pet geese to run around in the road. ) But the wording on the ballot made it very difficult to tell whether I was voting for or against the issue, and what the result would be of either answer.
Couldn't they just make the wording clear so that the average voter will know what they're voting for in the first place?
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Welcome to the Chicago Political Machine... or benevolent dictatorship.
I never realized how spoiled I was in CA, with the nice little non partisan informational pamphlet with statements from everyone running for what posts and the synopsis of all the propositions with who was endorsing and who was opposing.
With the judges you can go to the Illinois Bar Association, and some other similar websites and find out which ones have been given negative ratings.
I don't bother voting yes on the good ones, just no on the ones that are bad.
posted
(and you determine "bad" do your own standards, based on who is endorsing and who is opposing any given judge and why)
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the papers - I can't remember whether it's Trib or SunTimes - usually prints a "judges guide" in the election day paper. And yes you can take that in with you to the polling place. They get their recommendations from the IL and Chicago Bar Associations, IL and Chicago Lawyer's Associations, and I believe also the American Arbitration Association. So they're people that should have reasonable exposure to the judges they're recommending for retention or pushing to oust.
Unfortunately there's judges like the one we're dealing with in Probate right now who we seriously think is either manic or possibly schizo. He keeps contradicting his prior orders on the same case and is currently refusing to take into consideration the findings of another court. I don't believe he was up for retention this term, though.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) But the wording on the ballot made it very difficult to tell whether I was voting for or against the issue, and what the result would be of either answer. 
