Direct Democracy

Direct democracy is a form of government in which all laws are created by a general vote of society. This means that political decisions are put forward to the people as they are the ones who are going to be directly affected by the outcome of the decision. An example of direct democracy used occasionally in society is referendums. A referendum is a general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision. Within this essay I am going to be arguing whether direct democracy should be used more widely by weighing up the

There are many, many different Types of Government like an Absolute Monarchy and Dictatorship, but Representative Democracy is the most functional form of government. It is the best form of government because of the leader and the options that they give, the way the government is run, and that the citizens can make their own decisions.

In Nevada, in contrast, the State Supreme Court uses a “staggered” system in order to appoint their judges. The judges are selected not by presidential appointment but by “qualified electors of the State at the general election,” and are only allowed to hold their office for a limited period of years. Furthermore, the Chief Justice is only allowed to maintain their post for six years, thus reducing the opportunity to shape the direction of the state’s laws throughout the remainder of their lives.

There four possible ways of reforming the system: Nonpartisan elections, Legislative election, Merit selection and Gubernatorial appointment. Nonpartisan elections are similar to partisan election as judges will be elected directly by the people. However, in nonpartisan election candidates are listed on the ballot without a label designating party affiliation. Nonpartisan elections can minimize the involvement of interest group in the campaigning process. However, In the absence of party affiliation, issue-based campaigning will be popular. The other solution to Texas’s judicial flaws is a Legislative election. In this system, judges will be selected by the state legislature. In spite of that Legislative elections can potentially create a judiciary primarily made up of past

The Americans fought long and hard in their Revolution and deservingly so defeated the British and won their independence in 1783. From there, the US transferred to a government set by the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation did not turn out to provide a much better life than the Americans had under the British, with the states not able to work with each other. The lack of state's collaboration brought about this idea of too much Democracy. After the disaster that the AofC was, there was a new Constitution being drafted; however, many Americans were divided upon which path the new Constitution should take, one with or without a strong central government. This distinction in ideology put the country's elite at odds. The

The judge selection process in the USA today differs from one state to the other. Each state has its defined procedures to select and dismiss a judge from service. However, some of the States share the guidelines in choosing judges. Another common thing in the selection process is that all judges serve for a period of time upon which one is supposed to be elected to serve in the judiciary for another term. In this paper, the main focus is the selection process of the judge in Tennessee State. It also evaluates the similarities and differences between Tennessee State selection processes against Texas State.

Proponents of Judicial Elections argue that electing judges at a state level allows the judges to reconnect with the people in a closer way and to be more sensitive towards public opinion. However, the Judiciary system, unlike its other two counterparts, was not created to be a democratic institution. Instead, it was built to examine whether the government or the people are acting in accordance to law. Therefore, I oppose Judicial Elections for several reasons. One, it introduces partisanship to a supposedly impartial system and two, it risks disrupting the initial purpose of the Judiciary System which is to counterbalance the steps taken by the Congress and the Executive branch with the law.

In the nineteen thirties, the people of Missouri would pick judges and eventually politicians realized they could buy judges. They would buy votes especially an American politician Tom Pendergast, would try to pack the court with those who agreed with his political ideas. Until merit selection, the lawyers went against it and wanted a better way for judicial selection. Both Democrats and Republicans worked together and campaigned without financial interest. Leading to the Missouri plan where the judge is now chosen by merit and qualifications.

The initiative process is a great example of direct democracy. In California, for the ballot initiative process, citizens draw up

The federal court system selection process for judges are chosen by the current president of The United States and officially are decided by the senate (Gaines & Miller, 2012). Contrary to the federal judge selection process, they both assert that the state selection processes varies by different forms such as: appointment by the governor then validated by higher chambers of the particular states’ legislation, partisan or nonpartisan elections, or even utilizing The Missouri Plan of the integration of the appointment and election process; enabling the provision of additional opinions expressed by voters. In like manner, Glick & Emmert (1987) state that selection of judges also depend on: place of birth (have to be a United States citizen),

Direct democracy is a government in which the people decide. Direct democracy overall is a positive thing, but as with everything, there can be some dangers. Direct democracy is a form of democracy in which the people are able to vote and form consensus on policies directly. The people have the power of recall, which gives the public the power to remove elected officials from office before the end of their term if they do not feel they are doing a great job. California voters are also able to help make laws by creating ballot propositions.

The initiative process is a system designed to put lawmaking power in the hands of the people. The initiative allows voters often in an organized group to collect signatures to put a new law or a change to the state constitution before voters on the ballot. I feel the initiative process was designed to make politicians more responsive to voter needs. Some believe that the initiative is an important tool for good government and that the initiative process, while sometimes weak, is still effective. Others worry that the initiative process often no longer works the way it was designed, and that special interests have taken over the very process meant to limit their power.

12 We can eliminate most of that money, and much of the bitterness of the campaigns, by adopting a system in which the state's governor appoints a judge from an independent commission's list. The governor's appointee would serve for a period of years and then stand before the public in an election that tests the incumbent's performance in office. Politics will inevitably enter the process (as it does in all aspects of public life), but a judge's qualifications, temperament, and work ethic would be paramount” (Jefferson,

The United States of America’s liberation from Britain was an incredible feet, yet afterwards there were many loose ends that needed to be tied up to truly start their independence as a free nation. At the top of that list was to choice and construct what type of government our country would build itself around and from which it would grow for many years to come. There have always been various structures and frameworks, socialism, communism, etc, in which you can construct a country’s government from, but the United States of America picking a representative democracy, or a republic, made this country as great as it is.

What are the pros and cons of the elective system and the merit system for selecting state judges. In the merit the judicial person is nominated with a list of qualified people about 3 to 5. Then the list is sent to the governor for him to decide on list of candidates. Then after about a year the judge is faced with an uncontested retention election then each subsequent term thereafter. As for an elective system judge’s campaigns are somewhat low-key turn outs are often unopposed.