Part 1 is kinda GQ, but since Part 2 is definitely GD I thought I’d post here. However, I am hoping for a GQ/GD Hybrid kind of an answer:
Part 1
So, there are a bunch of Judges on the ballot in California for this election.
First I thought, as I thought in previous elections with Judges on the ballot, that I was voting these Judges to their seats. With so many Judges on the ballot, I was worried that, in order to make an informed vote, I would have to research each and every one of them! Aaargh!
Now, according to pg 113 of the California Voter Information Guide, I see that I have completely misunderstood.
Now I understand that these Judges are already appointed and that we are simply voting to confirm. GQ: Do I now understand this correctly? If not, where am I going wrong.
Part 2
Since we live in a representational democracy, I don’t see a lot of sense in nullifying the decisions of our elected officials, even those officials with whose politics I disagree, unless said decisions amount to abuse, corruption, or irresponsible disregard for the public good.
Feeling this way, I am inclined to vote “Yes” for each of the judicial appointments.
I am comfortable voting “Yes” even without in depth research to inform myself about each individual Judge.
GD.1: Is this an irresponsible way to vote?
GD.2: Given that I am inclined to vote “Yes” are there any justices to whom I should apply extra srutiny, appointments that might fall under my above mentioned concern for “abuse, corruption, or irresponsible disregard for the public good”?
California Justices to be confirmed by “Yes” or “No” vote in the General Election