How Democrats Can Learn Populism

[Oexmelin]

Why does good stable government require any particular enshrinement of political values?  Why does it require a "managerial system".  Why does it require peopel who "can envision no change".  All of that is contrary to what I posted.  The fact that you see a system which does not have radical changes in the way you describe underlies the difference in our politics.

Well, then you need to describe more fully what your ideal political regime would be. For now, you simply made the apology of a single-party system with little political life aside from elections, and which is only modified from within according to the perceived outside preferences of its members. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Languish Lawyers would be welcome here.  I don't pretend to understand law that well, but I imagine some American lawyers have worked with both the elected and unelected variety at some point, or at least have a vibe in the profession.

I am familiar only with NY which is not particularly typical.  There is a big jumble of courts in NY State - city courts, county courts, housing courts, etc. - and there are different rules for selection that govern them; some appointed, some elected.  But for the principal trial level courts of general jurisdiction (confusingly called the "Supreme" Courts) - judges are elected to 14 year terms in regular partisan elections, except that they must first be nominated by party conventions.  What this effectively means is that state political party leaders pick the judges.  The Governor then appoints intermedaite appeals court judges from that group.  New York's highest court, the "Court of Appeal" is separately appointed by the governor with consent of the State Senate, again for 14 year terms.

In theory this process should mean that the "Supreme" Court judges tend to be partisan hacks, and there was a time at least in legend when that was so.  The entire process was challenged as unconstitutional  a few years ago, and although the SCOTUS unanimously upheld the system, 4 justices wrote separately to criticize it quite severely.  The reality, however, is that most of the state court judges I have been before have been very professional and impartial.  The party nominating committees these days do a pretty good job putting forward qualified candidates and don't use Supreme Court nominations to fill patronage positions.    I should point up that virtually all my practice in NY State has been before commercial division judges in Manhattan, who may or may not be representative of the state judiciary generally.  But focusing on that group, as a group they are on par with the federal judiciary, albeit without the same level of resources for managing case loads.

[Razgovory]

Well, thank you for your input.

[katmai]

I think only Americans elect judges and Sheriffs and the like.

How many states actually do that though?

I know we do it but that is mostly a reflection of our wild wild west history.

Well Alaska is so lawless we don't even have Sheriffs!

[crazy canuck]

Why does good stable government require any particular enshrinement of political values?  Why does it require a "managerial system".  Why does it require peopel who "can envision no change".  All of that is contrary to what I posted.  The fact that you see a system which does not have radical changes in the way you describe underlies the difference in our politics.

Well, then you need to describe more fully what your ideal political regime would be. For now, you simply made the apology of a single-party system with little political life aside from elections, and which is only modified from within according to the perceived outside preferences of its members.

You know Alberta is not a single party state.   Our UK friend may not know the political history of Alberta and so can be excused for making that mistake.  But you?

[Barrister]

You know Alberta is not a single party state.   

[crazy canuck]

You know Alberta is not a single party state.   

Didnt you just recently post about supporting the opposition party...

[Barrister]

You know Alberta is not a single party state.   

Didnt you just recently post about supporting the opposition party...

So is Russian not a single party state?  How about South Africa?  Singapore?

And I didn't say I supported the opposition.  I said I was considering it.   

[crazy canuck]

So is Russian not a single party state?  How about South Africa?  Singapore?

Really?  You think the political process in Alberta is the same as Russia?

I warned you living in Edmonton could have harmful long term effects.

[Barrister]

So is Russian not a single party state?  How about South Africa?  Singapore?

Really?  You think the political process in Alberta is the same as Russia?

I warned you living in Edmonton could have harmful long term effects.

You should go back and see that I listed three examples, not just one.

The existence of legal opposition parties does not mean there is a functioning multi-party democracy.

[crazy canuck]

So is Russian not a single party state?  How about South Africa?  Singapore?

Really?  You think the political process in Alberta is the same as Russia?

I warned you living in Edmonton could have harmful long term effects.

You should go back and see that I listed three examples, not just one.

The existence of legal opposition parties does not mean there is a functioning multi-party democracy.

Sorry, you lost credibility with your first example.  Your other two dont lend much credibility either.

You are right, the mere existence of other parties doesnt matter.  What you are missing is little details like, oh the Rule of Law and the strength of democratic instutions in the countries you listed. 

[Neil]

Question:  Do you elect Judges in Canada?  There are many places where judges are elected in the US.  What about law enforcement?  Do you elect Sheriffs?

No.  That would be utterly insane.

[Neil]

You know Alberta is not a single party state.   

Didnt you just recently post about supporting the opposition party...

So is Russian not a single party state?  How about South Africa?  Singapore?

And I didn't say I supported the opposition.  I said I was considering it.   

The best equivalent is Japan during the LDP dynasty years.  Sure, the other parties exist, but why would anybody vote for them?  Unless you're just a malcontent, your political home is probably in the Progressive Conservatives.  A party that can support Ted Morton and Alison Redford is truly broad.  People join the PCs not for ideological reasons, but because they want to take part in the governing of the province.

[Malthus]

Alberta and Norway are interesting examples of how completly different politics of government and society can look good - in a relatively small jurisdiction whose economy is kept boyant with Oil money. 

Anyway, all democratic regimes have to deal with the opposing benefits of stability and public input into change. Both are goods in their own way that can easily become bads - for example, while more engagement in the political process is a great thing, the political life of California has not been improved by government-by-referendum, even though this process arguably injects much-needed direct democratic participation.

[Sheilbh]

Alberta and Norway are interesting examples of how completly different politics of government and society can look good - in a relatively small jurisdiction whose economy is kept boyant with Oil money. 

Anyway, all democratic regimes have to deal with the opposing benefits of stability and public input into change. Both are goods in their own way that can easily become bads - for example, while more engagement in the political process is a great thing, the political life of California has not been improved by government-by-referendum, even though this process arguably injects much-needed direct democratic participation.

I can't stand direct democracy (Switzerland, again)

I do find democratic dominant party states quite interesting though.  Sweden and Norway are the good examples, then you've got the negative ones like Ireland or Japan.  I'm not sure where Alberta lies on the spectrum.  There's a French sociologist who argues that this is all down to traditional family structure.  I wasn't sold on it and don't have his book any more so I can't quite remember the details but it was a very interesting read.