As I understand it, the American system of government is split into three: the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Legislative. And you have citizen-level votes for the Federal Executive and the Federal Legislative. So why don’t you have it for the Judiciary? Or do you? As I understand it, America does at the State level, but not at the Federal level: Federal and Supreme Court judges are proposed by the Executive and then confirmed by the Legislative. Why not have them directly elected by the populace as with other judges?
Given how well we do electing the legislature and the executive, I’m not really too upset we don’t elect the judiciary, as well.
Anyway, the reason that federal judges aren’t elected by the people is that we don’t want judges elected based on how well they can pander to the public, but how qualified they are to be judges.
Also, not all the States have elected judges. Some states do. Others also have appointed judges. Yet others have a system wherein the judge is appointed and some time after the people vote on whether to keep him/her on to finish the term. Some states allow election of lower court judges but appoint the higher-court justices. Many of the appointed-judge states do not just let the governor pick whoever he wants, a judicial selection board picks the qualified candidates.
At the Federal Level, I don’t want decisions on fundamental matters of Constitutional Law that apply to ME, even if the case originates in Cornmeal Falls, Iowa, being made by people whose main qualification is they could raise $20 million for a primary campaign. Or by people worried about running for re-election against those guys. (If a county judge in Cornmeal falls flubs a case, it only hurts the poor people of Cornmeal Falls; if SCotUS flubs a case, I lose my rights)
Although there are “citizen-level votes” for the two people at the head of the Federal Executive, the actual election uses an indirect mechanism that “weighs” those votes by state, differently than a direct count. And until the early 20th century, the upper chamber of the Federal Legislative was in turn elected by State Legislatures. In any case since the Federal Judiciary uses the Appointed-with-Senate-confirmation system, those favored must get the vote of those who represent at least half the states, rather than just a plurality of the population.
But we DO want judges chosen based on how well they pander to the members of congress who have to confirm them? Essentially, the major concern is how well they’ll appeal to the constituencies of those confirming them.
Of course, having them directly elected by the people would be worse, as JRDelirious points out. I don’t really want to see a judicial campaign. I like at least a hope of having one branch of govenment that makes its decisions in the way they should. Wouldn’t that be a nightmare-- “If the American people lend me their support, I hereby promise to overturn Roe v. Wade!” (Or uphold-- whatever. It’s not about the politics of the statement. It’s about the fact that there ARE politics in the statement.)
I’m just gonna point out one more reason why we don’t favor, and I would not support, direct higher judicial elections: the judge positions electable can be appealled upwards should politics seem to interfere with law. Case in point on “popularity” being at odds with judicial neutrality would be the deliciously idiotic Judge Roy Moore who had the Ten Commandments installed in his courthouse to score political cred. Could you imagine a SCotUS Justice up for re-election doing something like that? Yeah. Bad.