Amendment II: Apolytonian Court - Idea Compilation

[Jon Shafer]

Elected judges = a weakened court.

If judges are elected like ministers, then it will be a popularity contest worse than minister elections. They can have no platform, and therefore, are only voted by how popular they are. For example, if I were to run against Togas for one of the judicial positions after my Presidency, who do you think would win? Togas just emailed me and told me that he's an attorney in real life, and thoroughly understands the law as well as its repercussions. I know that I would pick him over me any day to be a judge.

I'm not saying that the public is stupid, just that it can be vulnerable to these kinds of situations. And if you do not trust your President to be the most apolitical member of the government, then I suggest running yourself, if you feel that is such a great problem. I hope you guys won't be voting real dictators into power.

The impeachment issue:

I think that it can be entirely reworked with this amendment. For example, here's my proposal:

IN ALL CASES, ministers can only be impeached by a 51% vote in the Court, and a 2/3 votes amongst the people. A judge can be removed from office by a 51% vote in the government, and a 2/3 vote amongst the people.

There. Is that fair enough? That will be how all impeachents/removals from office/whatever you want to call them will be conducted.

[jdjdjd]

Not that I like to agree to often with those in power....

But, Trip has hit the nail on the head there.

In another thread on these issues, Lord Impact proposed appt by the Pres, concurrment by the minsters at 51 % and approval by the populace at 67%. A bit long on time, but may be a compromise, as such.

I might suggest leaving out the ministers, then the general populace acts as the Congress would in US and confirm the appt made by the Pres.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by Trip
Elected judges = a weakened court.

If judges are elected like ministers, then it will be a popularity contest worse than minister elections. They can have no platform, and therefore, are only voted by how popular they are. For example, if I were to run against Togas for one of the judicial positions after my Presidency, who do you think would win? Togas just emailed me and told me that he's an attorney in real life, and thoroughly understands the law as well as its repercussions. I know that I would pick him over me any day to be a judge.

How would a vote among the ministers make this any better?

Besides, if judge elections are handled by a popular vote (pun intended), I'm sure qualifications such as being a lawyer, judge, etc. in RL will be mentioned. Candidates who can make such statements would be stupid not to.

And finally, I think there's also something to bo said for voter responsibility. If all of the judge appointments are both made and confirmed by the government, citizens may not give the judges as much credence as they would if they were the ones confirming them; after all, they had no say except their votes for ministers and president, and I know I want to consider competence of the candidates without their potential confirmation votes getting in the way. Also, if confirmations were handled by the people, we'd have to at least partially blame ourselves for bad judges getting elected.

The impeachment issue:

I think that it can be entirely reworked with this amendment. For example, here's my proposal:

Looks good to me.

[Togas]

Confirmation by the Public?

I know we all want to have a say in what's going on, but we have to consider what grounds we, the public, would use to confirm an appointed judge: political parties, popularity, number of posts?

Are we going to vote/not vote for people based on their qualifications? If so, what qualifications are important to us as individuals, and do we want our judges to campaign and try to sway the masses to pick them?

Let's be honest with ourselves about this: Do we the public NEED to confirm the judges because we don't trust our elected officials to pick good ones, or do we WANT to confirm the judges because we like to feel involved in the process?

Of course, I'm reminded of the American process for picking judges whereby the Senate asks them about their alleged sexual harassment of female clerks and asks if they watch pornography... democracy at it's finest.

--Togas

[Sheik]

Originally posted by Trip

If judges are elected like ministers, then it will be a popularity contest worse than minister elections. They can have no platform, and therefore, are only voted by how popular they are.

Judges must be appointed.

[notyoueither]

Confirmation does not mean election.

Confirmation is a yes/no to a single candidate. Not a choice among many.

It should be 51% to confirm. 51% to reconfirm.

The reason for the people to be involved is to be a check on potential ministerial abuse, and to get the politicians right out of the reconfirmation process.

Checks and balances.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by Togas
Confirmation by the Public?

I know we all want to have a say in what's going on, but we have to consider what grounds we, the public, would use to confirm an appointed judge: political parties, popularity, number of posts?

Are we going to vote/not vote for people based on their qualifications? If so, what qualifications are important to us as individuals, and do we want our judges to campaign and try to sway the masses to pick them?

All very good arguments, though, as NYE pointed out, there wouldn't be much of a campaign; just a confirmation or rejection. But what makes the ministers any different? They probably play Civ better than most of us in order to be elected, but I don't see how they could accept or reject judges any wiser than the rest of us.

[Jon Shafer]

Ministers can be (and are) elected based upon their views.

A judge trying to do the same thing would be on a one-way ticket home. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Ministers are also elected because their jobs demand some kind of maturity and ability to make rational decisions. If we cannot trust them to make decisions for us in any case, then why have ministers with power at all?

[notyoueither]

The ministers play that game, that is what all this is about. Isn't it?

Ministers should be more political animals. Judges should be very unpolitical animals. However, the people should have a say about judges who overstay their usefulness.

Nobody has said that people can not campaign against a judge being reconfirmed. If you want to take a stand on a reconfirmation, go ahead.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The ministers play that game, that is what all this is about. Isn't it?

Actually, the President plays the game. The ministers 'advise', which can be done just as well as a poll or Joe 'Poly out there.

Ministers should be more political animals. Judges should be very unpolitical animals. However, the people should have a say about judges who overstay their usefulness.

I think most people will agree that politics = badness in most cases: ministers or judges.

Nobody has said that people can not campaign against a judge being reconfirmed. If you want to take a stand on a reconfirmation, go ahead.

I don't plan on being a judge, nor do I plan on being around for their reconfirmation, so I want to hear other people's ideas on this.

[disorganizer]

well, if only the ministers advise, why dont we call it a "civ3 game of monarchy"? this would fit better.

the way we should come to is: the CITIZENS advise. actually, the advisors play the game, as the president should not be able to take any action in the game without the advice of the citizenry, represented by the ministers.

and this is what we need the judges for.
so appointing to judges by the president would be a bad idea, as they have an interest-conflict when sueing the president. also, this will not prevent a campaign, just that it will not be a campaing for the populace but for the president (who will he/she appoint? definitely ppl he/she likes or who he knows are loyal to him/her).

[Jon Shafer]

I say this not only in my own defense, but for any potential Presidents in the future.

Have you no more confidence in this office than that? The President's position is the most prestigious, powerful, and the one that carries the most responsibility than any other. I hold the belief that whoever holds this position will be responsible enough to appoint judges that are fair and neutral. This should be one of the reasons you want to pick a fair and neutral President, or at least one that understands what the judges positions are, and not appoint people based upon their party.

If you lack such confidence in the President, then there can be some way to remove the judges who are corrupt, say, by a 51% vote. But wait! You say that that would be an easy number for a party to easily remove all judges. Well then, what are you going to do... who can you trust...

[notyoueither]

I'm sorry Trip, but you can not measure your successors by your own stick. Bad people get to the top all the time through some form of elections. That is history. That is why abuses are guarded against in a well constituted nation.

As for the ministers and President and who is 'playing'... who is it you ask for orders in a turn chat? I thought so. The president and the ministers are playing the game collectively. This court is not involved in that in the slightest. It would be good to differentiate.

[disorganizer]

@trip: this was not meant for you, great leader ;-)

but this was exactly the way how some party managed to corrupt the weimar republic constitution in rl. the fathers of this document just trusted the politicians too much and left holes in there, which those used to gain power and destroy democracy. citizens at that time were blended by propaganda. this scenario could happen in our vl too.

[Spiffor]

I'm sorry to be unconstructive here, but I can't imagine modfying this document so that it becomes good. Don' get me wrong : it's well written and interesting.
But the very spirit of this document is to take power from the people (no election / confirmation, impeachment of judges by the ministers, the court has decsion powers in matters of impeachment of an executive etc.)

This game is intended to be fun for everyone, not for a small group of executives who get to decide everything. We're slowly becoming a modern Democracy, like one of those where 50% people don't care, and other 25% wote only because "it's a duty".

Trip seems to be fine with giving less and less interest to the people in this game. I don't.