A suggestion regarding TNP judicial elections

I think that might be simply down to the nature of the Court as a three-person body. If we had to elect three Vice Delegates or three Speakers, I think a lot of the time we'd have fewer than three stellar winners too.
 
SillyString:
I think that might be simply down to the nature of the Court as a three-person body. If we had to elect three Vice Delegates or three Speakers, I think a lot of the time we'd have fewer than three stellar winners too.
Click to expand...
I can agree with this.
 
Which is why three distinct races for the three seats, rather than a group election, would increase the probabilities of electing competent justices. It's the nature of group elections that contributes to the problem.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Which is why three distinct races for the three seats, rather than a group election, would increase the probabilities of electing competent justices. It's the nature of group elections that contributes to the problem.
Click to expand...
While I do think distinct races for each seat is superior to a group election in general, I don't think it's necessarily more likely to give us a high quality court.

Let us say there are 8 candidates for justice, numbered 1 through 8, with 1 being the most competent, and 8 being the least. If the ballot looks like this, we're in good shape:
Justice 1: < 1 4 7 Abstain >
Justice 2: < 2 5 8 Abstain >
Justice 3: < 3 6 Abstain>
Click to expand...
But if the ballot looks like this, we're fucked:
Justice 1: < 1 2 3 Abstain >
Justice 2: < 4 5 6 7 Abstain >
Justice 3: < 8 Abstain >
Click to expand...

I think that problem could be avoided if we also elected justices one at a time in separate election cycles. The weakness of this approach is that it would triple the number of judicial elections, and shorten the length of time that any given court has to work before a justice changes out. On the other hand, it might make such transitions much more smooth.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Grosseschnauzer:
Which is why three distinct races for the three seats, rather than a group election, would increase the probabilities of electing competent justices. It's the nature of group elections that contributes to the problem.
Click to expand...
While I do think distinct races for each seat is superior to a group election in general, I don't think it's necessarily more likely to give us a high quality court.

Let us say there are 8 candidates for justice, numbered 1 through 8, with 1 being the most competent, and 8 being the least. If the ballot looks like this, we're in good shape:
Justice 1: < 1 4 7 Abstain >
Justice 2: < 2 5 8 Abstain >
Justice 3: < 3 6 Abstain>
Click to expand...
But if the ballot looks like this, we're fucked:
Justice 1: < 1 2 3 Abstain >
Justice 2: < 4 5 6 7 Abstain >
Justice 3: < 8 Abstain >
Click to expand...

I think that problem could be avoided if we also elected justices one at a time in separate election cycles. The weakness of this approach is that it would triple the number of judicial elections, and shorten the length of time that any given court has to work before a justice changes out. On the other hand, it might make such transitions much more smooth.
Click to expand...
I actually don't see any benefits (or any superiority) to electing three justices at the same time in separate voting sets. All I can see it doing is preventing the voters from voting for the three candidates they actually want to win.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I cannot disagree with you more strongly, Roman. I believe that most TNP voters attempt to put the best candidates in office, and that our electoral system, in most cases, produces very meritorious officials. I think that there is a definite correlation between competence and popularity, of course. It stands to reason that people who are very good at government work become popular for doing their jobs well.
Click to expand...
I still think it's a popularity contest and that actual competence has very little to do with it, if at all.

And there is absolutely no correlation between competence and popularity.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Which is why three distinct races for the three seats, rather than a group election, would increase the probabilities of electing competent justices. It's the nature of group elections that contributes to the problem.
Click to expand...
The only way this would make sense is if we staggered elections for the three seats, something that I have supported in the past.

So long as we continue to elect all three seats at the same time, distinct elections not only do they offer no advantage, they don't even make sense, given that the three seats are functionally equivalent.

It would only have two effects:
1) Increased electioneering, with candidates shuffling the seat they are running for based on which one provides them with the weakest opposition.
2) Reduced voter liberty, with voters no longer being able to select the group of their preference, and instead having to abide by arbitrary separation of the candidates into three groups.

Both effects are negative. In fact, they are very similar to the negative effects of gerrymandering.
 
We didn't need staggered elections for seats on the Court under prior Constitutions when we did elect them as distinct seats (and one specifically as Chief Justice) in the past.

The logical thing is to go back to that system first, and if there's isn't a better result, then other formulae could be looked at. And just how would we stagger the elections for each seat? Elect one seat every month? Every two months? Four months? extend terms of Justices to three times the frequency of electing individual seats? Those are all far more complicated solutions than the one I suggest, and one that is fairly easy to implement legislatively.
 
Yes, but as Asta, COE, and I explained above, going back to the old system without staggering does not solve anything, and instead creates more problems. It was an absurd system, it's good that we got rid of it, and we should not regress back to it.
 
And r3n, I disagree with you fundamentally. I think the current system has been a disaster all along. And the evidence shows it does not work. Staggered elections would not be an improvement without a lot of other changes that I pointed out and to which, I would not, you pointedly and conveniently ignored.
We shouldn't have gotten rid of the approach of the last Constitution; in fact we should have made sure each seat was in fact separately listed on the ballot as it should have been.
Appointing justice subject to confirmation would not work unless we limit Delegates to one term only, and the nominations came at the end of the term. We've had appointment and confirmation votes for Justices as well, under the Constitution that came out of the Constitutional Convention. But as I noted, unless there's a way to have nominees chosen that takes the Delegate's political benefit out of the equation, that wouldn't work very well.

And don't forget, I'm probably the only person who has been chosen for the Court under all three Constitutions, so my experience in the matter should count for something. It is after all, first hand experience.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
And r3n, I disagree with you fundamentally. I think the current system has been a disaster all along. And the evidence shows it does not work.
Click to expand...
What evidence? Some alleged decrease in quality of the justices elected? Because personally I am thoroughly unimpressed with the quality of most of the justices elected under the previous system. I would even go so far as to say that some of the best justices we've had in the region were elected under the current system.

But even if I were to agree that under the previous system elections produced better justices, one cannot logically establish a causal relation between the separate races and the quality of those elected. To the contrary, COE, Asta, and I above have proven that the old system would produce at best the same, and at worst worse results than the current system.

Staggered elections would not be an improvement without a lot of other changes that I pointed out and to which, I would not, you pointedly and conveniently ignored.
Click to expand...
I did not address the points about staggered elections because it is not necessary to address them for the matter at stake. I am not (at least not currently) proposing that we adopt staggered elections. I am only opposing your proposal that we go back to the old system.
 
Grosse, asserting an opinion repeatedly doesn't make it any more true.

You have not offered a single actual argument, fact, or piece of evidence that separating the judicial election would improve the results, and neither has anyone else. You have simply stated, repeatedly, without justification of any kind, that it would.

In contrast, COE, r3n, and I have offered some very specific ways that separating the judicial election would severely damage the results and result in lowered electoral freedom. Moreover, despite our best efforts, not one of us can come up with a single benefit from doing so[note]Not taking into account the question of staggering elections, which is more complicated.[/note] - and we're pretty damn smart.

Your opinion, when presented without supporting evidence, does not, in fact, merit more consideration simply because you have served as justice. Experience is no defense against being wrong, and you've given absolutely no reason to think you're anything but completely wrong here.

I'm not normally this blunt about things, but... put up or shut up? :shrug:
 
What's this place? Sounds fun! :)

And the debate here is about a bar exam for the Justices. There are pros and cons to this. Like some people mentioned, this is a great idea because it would ensure the elections to have good candidates and to ensure the elections will not be "popularity contests". On the other hand, the laws always change, and keeping an updated test is tough.

And about the system, I'd say that this one works better. The elections have less problems with this system than with the proposed one. As some people said, that system will allow to the candidates shuffling the seat they are running for based on which one provides them with the weakest opposition.
 
SillyString:
Grosse, asserting an opinion repeatedly doesn't make it any more true.

You have not offered a single actual argument, fact, or piece of evidence that separating the judicial election would improve the results, and neither has anyone else. You have simply stated, repeatedly, without justification of any kind, that it would.

In contrast, COE, r3n, and I have offered some very specific ways that separating the judicial election would severely damage the results and result in lowered electoral freedom. Moreover, despite our best efforts, not one of us can come up with a single benefit from doing so[note]Not taking into account the question of staggering elections, which is more complicated.[/note] - and we're pretty damn smart.

Your opinion, when presented without supporting evidence, does not, in fact, merit more consideration simply because you have served as justice. Experience is no defense against being wrong, and you've given absolutely no reason to think you're anything but completely wrong here.

I'm not normally this blunt about things, but... put up or shut up? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Your evidence isn't evidence, except to you. So do not, ever, tell me what to say or think. Your opinion is that it is evidence, or not, does not make either so.

For the benefit of McMasterdonia during this term as Delegate, I have promised him personally to try and hold my piece where you are concerned. But you make it almost impossible. Hereafter, just ignore me, and I will ignore you. Otherwise it will get very nasty, very quickly. So if there's an escalation, it will be solely by your choice and not by mine.

And its interesting that you propose that I not express my opinions. Freedom of Speech, anyone? Oh, that's right --- it's in the Bill of Rights, a document you to this day, still don't understand or seem to comphrehend.
 
Admin hat: Suppose we all try to write arguments which do not use the word "You."

Pirate hat: The issue of when and how to hold elections should be a separate one from the proposal of a bar exam. Being a judge is not a job for everyone. Personally, I think they should be appointed by the Delegate, subject to a confirmation vote by the citizenry. Justices can serve until they resign or are recalled. I believe the cream would rise to the top.

An exam would be an excellent tool to show that someone had a good handle on our laws. But, gosh, please let's make it an open book test.
 
Well, a simple suggestion tat we have a bar exam sure escalated quickly.

Ps Gbm, my dad always used to say that cream is not the only thing that floats. that
 
If citizens aren't fit to run, why would they be elected in the first place?
People can make their own judgments. You don't need an exam to run for president, thats why this guy is running: www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE
 
I want to write the exams! However, they won't be easy to pass because I'm a sadist. :fish:
rules:
100% required to pass
50 multiple choice questions(all choices are plausible answers)
Timed for 5 minutes!
Plus a 15 page dissertation! With tiny words

you_shall_not_pass1.jpg


In more seriousness, if we choose to elect justices, we could use the condorcet election the goal is to elect the least despised candidate. Some have called it the fairest election system of all. Thoughts?
 
JhonsJoe:
If citizens aren't fit to run, why would they be elected in the first place?
People can make their own judgments. You don't need an exam to run for president, thats why this guy is running: www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE
Click to expand...
The exam would not be compulsory in order to run. It would simply give one more bit of data for voters to use to choose their candidate.
 
Great Bights Mum:
An exam would be an excellent tool to show that someone had a good handle on our laws. But, gosh, please let's make it an open book test.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any way to enforce a non open-book test, for one thing. For another, I'm inclined in favor of COE's suggestion of the test taking answers in the form of short essays. Someone's reasoning ability is much more important than simply giving the correct answer.

JhonsJoe:
If citizens aren't fit to run, why would they be elected in the first place?
Click to expand...
Everyone is fit to run, but not everyone is good to elect. That doesn't stop them from winning sometimes because sometimes there's a bad candidate pool - particularly for justice.
 
I like the concept of this quite a bit. I agree with Silly String that a justice's reasoning is far more important than an answer to a specific question.
 
SillyString:
Great Bights Mum:
An exam would be an excellent tool to show that someone had a good handle on our laws. But, gosh, please let's make it an open book test.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any way to enforce a non open-book test, for one thing.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking... using the honor system would be apt.
 
flemingovia:
Remind me again, which system was the full head land trial and jal1 under?
Click to expand...
We currently (and for some time now) have a Judicial System and Legal System which is idiotic and unnecessarily complex to the point that no rational Justice can act rationally in adjudicating anything and obscenely prone to political expedience and political influence.

Our current legal and judicial system is overly complex and idiotically arranged unto the point that it is entirely stripped of any reason, rationality or objectivity except the objectivity of political expedience and as a tool of political motives.

Put in simple terms, if your goal is to reform the legal and judicial system, you are wasting your time because no one is going to listen to you any more than they are going to listen to me. So, save yourself the aggravation and sit back and watch the legal/judicial system collapse under its own weight, and possibly give it a shove over the edge when the time comes. And when a total and complete collapse comes, settle for nothing more than completely new system and completely disparage any attempt to 'overhaul' a sinking ship.

:2c:
 
Romanoffia:
flemingovia:
Remind me again, which system was the full head land trial and jal1 under?
Click to expand...
We currently (and for some time now) have a Judicial System and Legal System which is idiotic and unnecessarily complex to the point that no rational Justice can act rationally in adjudicating anything and obscenely prone to political expedience and political influence.

Our current legal and judicial system is overly complex and idiotically arranged unto the point that it is entirely stripped of any reason, rationality or objectivity except the objectivity of political expedience and as a tool of political motives.

Put in simple terms, if your goal is to reform the legal and judicial system, you are wasting your time because no one is going to listen to you any more than they are going to listen to me. So, save yourself the aggravation and sit back and watch the legal/judicial system collapse under its own weight, and possibly give it a shove over the edge when the time comes. And when a total and complete collapse comes, settle for nothing more than completely new system and completely disparage any attempt to 'overhaul' a sinking ship.

:2c:
Click to expand...
One wonders, then, why you keep running for justice ?
 
Romanoffia:
flemingovia:
Remind me again, which system was the full head land trial and jal1 under?
Click to expand...
We currently (and for some time now) have a Judicial System and Legal System which is idiotic and unnecessarily complex to the point that no rational Justice can act rationally in adjudicating anything and obscenely prone to political expedience and political influence.

Our current legal and judicial system is overly complex and idiotically arranged unto the point that it is entirely stripped of any reason, rationality or objectivity except the objectivity of political expedience and as a tool of political motives.

Put in simple terms, if your goal is to reform the legal and judicial system, you are wasting your time because no one is going to listen to you any more than they are going to listen to me. So, save yourself the aggravation and sit back and watch the legal/judicial system collapse under its own weight, and possibly give it a shove over the edge when the time comes. And when a total and complete collapse comes, settle for nothing more than completely new system and completely disparage any attempt to 'overhaul' a sinking ship.

:2c:
Click to expand...
How would you suggest reforming the legal system?
 
Bar exams are primarily designed to test one's ability to identify legal issues and the applicable principles involved. They are not designed to test rote knowledge. Final exams in law school courses in the real world at any rate are likewise. The only difference being that in the bar exam the issues and principles can come from overlapping areas of law, substantive and procedural, and test one's ability to recognize the overlap and identify them.

There is no way in Hades we'd be able to duplicate that here. First of all, we do not have any civil areas of law or procedure to speak of, and until we institute a course in exam taking (which they have in real life, they're called bar review courses), there is no way to design a fair exam. As I mentioned some posts back, we talked about having an exam for a TNP Bar Association some years ago, and that constitution and legal code were less complicated than the current one. And we knew then there'd have to be some sort of course first.

And one other point: reasoning skills, and any evaluation of them is inherently subjective. Put into certain hands that will not be named, it would amount to nothing more than a "black ball" methodology, to let in their friends and allies, and leave those who aren't, out.

Consider those issues for a bit, and you'll conclude that it really is not a good idea.
 
"Bar exams" in an NS context can be useful and entertaining if used properly. I have in the past run a few myself, in other regions.

In regions such as ours, with developed legal systems, bar exams can be used as a valuable educational tool for new members to familiarize themselves with our statute. Such a test should focus on foundations: the structure of our laws, important principles, areas where it's very different from the NS mainstream, important court precedent, and so on. Succeeding in the test would show that the taker has some basic proficiency in our laws, rather than prove expertise. Such a test should ideally be developed and administered by the Attorney General's office, in their role of providing legal counsel to the region at large. Of course, the AG's office can hire citizens to assist with the project.

I would be against a test that focuses on proving extensive expertise. For one thing, our laws are involved enough that there is not always consensus on advanced technical subjects. Definitive answers to such issues can only be obtained from the Court itself. Moreover, this kind of extertise can only reliably be evaluated by observing people's commentary in areas such as the RA and the Court forums.

Finally, if we do decide to start having bar exams, of either kind, I would be strongly against making them a legal prerequisite for justice candidacies. The electorate can choose, by convention, to enforce a soft such requirement if they wish, but fundamentally we should continue to allow all citizens to run for justice.
 
So, to summarise. The consensus among those who are generally in favour of this idea seems to be:

1. A bar exam should not be a requirement for running for office, although it should help candidates demonstrate a basic grasp of our laws.

2. the exam should not be closed book, and should demonstrate an understanding of our laws rather than simply a factual knowledge of them.

Reasonable summary?
 
reasonable summary, also PWL wants a bar association so if people pass this exam they can be on the bar, similar to how RL lawyers and such are in 'murica. And they are subject to abide by ethics set by the bar.
 
JhonsJoe:
If citizens aren't fit to run, why would they be elected in the first place?
People can make their own judgments. You don't need an exam to run for president, thats why this guy is running: www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE
Click to expand...
Hey hey, Urkle, what do you have against manditory toothbrushing laws and free Identification ponies for all Americans?

One day Id like to see Vermin Surpreme and Jimmy McMillan get together to form the ultimate Presidential ticket of all time.
 
I think we also need to consider the issue of re-tests. If someone takes the exam early in their TNP career before they're ready for it, they shouldn't be stuck with that score forever. However, it doesn't seem quite right for them to get the same set of questions. I think that however the test is administered, we will need a large bank of questions that each candidate answers a random selection of. Perhaps 1/4 of the total questions would be on each test.
 
flemingovia:
Romanoffia:
flemingovia:
Remind me again, which system was the full head land trial and jal1 under?
Click to expand...
We currently (and for some time now) have a Judicial System and Legal System which is idiotic and unnecessarily complex to the point that no rational Justice can act rationally in adjudicating anything and obscenely prone to political expedience and political influence.

Our current legal and judicial system is overly complex and idiotically arranged unto the point that it is entirely stripped of any reason, rationality or objectivity except the objectivity of political expedience and as a tool of political motives.

Put in simple terms, if your goal is to reform the legal and judicial system, you are wasting your time because no one is going to listen to you any more than they are going to listen to me. So, save yourself the aggravation and sit back and watch the legal/judicial system collapse under its own weight, and possibly give it a shove over the edge when the time comes. And when a total and complete collapse comes, settle for nothing more than completely new system and completely disparage any attempt to 'overhaul' a sinking ship.

:2c:
Click to expand...
One wonders, then, why you keep running for justice ?
Click to expand...


I've been wondering that myself. Why don't you run for justice and find out for yourself? :lol:


mcmasterdonia:
One always wonders why people run for justice :P
Click to expand...

Gluttons for punishment, I reckon. :cheese:
 
For reference to the discussion nine or ten years ago about a TNP Bar Association see
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=105061&t=630458
I tried to find that older discussion at Old Blue and wasn't successful, although I did find a few candidate platforms referencing a need to finalize the creation of a Bar Assoication in the four search results. And GBM, do you remember anything of those discussions and that effort? As you are mentioned as trying to move the idea along as well after Pulp Phenom apparently left back then,
 
david_:
I guess this is why IRL most judges are appointed. It would be hell trying to elect them!
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think we should have the Chief Justice appoint our judges, and the Attorney-General appoint the Chief Justice. That could work.
 
In what universe does it make sense for the AG (who is in charge of prosecuting those accused of a crime) to appoint the chief justice, and by extension, the entire court? That is begging for the system to be abused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top