- This topic has 8 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 6 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
I would support elimination of the electoral college as long as we replaced it with a nationwide initiative process similar to California’s. Direct democracy works for me.
Know who it doesn’t work for? Politicians.
Stung by Voters, Republican Legislators Move to Curb Citizen Initiatives – The New York Times
Audaces fortuna iuvat
-
Not for me. There’s a reason why the Founding Fathers provided for regional representation as well as direct election. How long do you think that Wyoming and Montana would stay in the Union if they were governed by majorities in Los Angeles and New York?
As for direct initiative, I love it in principle. In actual practice, there’s a real problem with how easily it can be manipulated by the proverbial special interest groups. In this case, there’s reality to that. California’s Constitution is an unholy mess because of the number of amendments made by direct election, constitutional because the proponents of the measure wanted to prevent the legislature from laying hands on some poorly constructed or outdated measure.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
-
-
-
Perhaps we should do away with the jury system, the 12 normal people who vote on guilt and innocence. They’re not educated or steeped in the law, nor are voters. Replace juries with a triad of judges.
A Minnesota state supreme court ruling held that a judge cannot overturn the ruling of a jury by weighing evidence differently than the jury. Abu Fatah Yousseff defrauded the state of $7.2 million by billing without providing services. and last summer, a jury unanimously found him guilty. The judge overturned the verdict because he weighed the evidence differently.
The MSSC found that a judge cannot act as a 13th juror and change the jury’s ruling because they differ over the weight of the evidence.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
-
-
after church today I talked to a lady who just got done doing jury duty. SHe talked about how professional the process was, how good the judge was in giving instructions, and how careful jury selection was. So while imperfect, I guess I’ll come down on the side of “liking” the jury system in general.
-
In theory, I like the jury system. I just don’t like three elements:
- The attorneys are paid to argue one side of the case. They’re not there to seek justice. And they deal with rank amateurs in the jury.
- Voir dire. Subject to rules, each side gets to pick jurors…and they aren’t seeking justice, they’re seeking jurors sympathetic to their side. I’d support the jury system much more if they selected 12 random people.
- Kalven and Zeisel’s The American Jury which polled judges as to how often they agreed with jury decisions. For criminal trials, the judges agreed 78% to 80% of the time. For civil trials, the judges agreed 78% of the time. The study was later repeated by Eisenberg, Hannaford-Agor, Hans, Waters, Munsterman, Schwab, and Wells, which found essentially the same pattern: about 77% agreement. In other words, the best and smartest jurists — judges — disagree with juries betwen 1/4th and 1/5th of the time. That is unacceptably high.
I have to admit that I’m biased. I was involved in a dispute with an 80 year old, said person was a CPA with representation, who drew up and had me sign not one, not two, but three separate contracts agreeing to a real estate transaction involving an option to purchase. The market ran away from her. Both our mediator and our attorney said that 100% of the law was on our side. Both recommended that on the facts, we would win at trial. But both recommended we avoid trial. Why? Because old people sit on juries. And they would side with other older people, right or wrong.
So…no. Not a fan of the jury system in its current reality.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
-
Not for me. There’s a reason why the Founding Fathers provided for regional representation as well as direct election. How long do you think that Wyoming and Montana would stay in the Union if they were governed by majorities in Los Angeles and New York? As for direct initiative, I love it in principle. In actual practice, there’s a real problem with how easily it can be manipulated by the proverbial special interest groups. In this case, there’s reality to that. California’s Constitution is an unholy mess because of the number of amendments made by direct election, constitutional because the proponents of the measure wanted to prevent the legislature from laying hands on some poorly constructed or outdated measure.
17 states representing 222 electoral votes (48 short of the 270 needed for election) have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Under the compact, member states will award all their electoral votes to the nation’s popular vote winner regardless of who carried each state.
Virginia joins interstate compact to award electoral votes by national popular vote
Virginia just joined. All participating states lean Democratic, quelle surprise.
I would still prefer a nationwide initiative system.
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact – Wikipedia
Audaces fortuna iuvat
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.