The Pros And Cons Of Voting In The United States

In this great nation, we are given the power of choice through a democracy. Whether that choice be for our next president, congressman, state representative, and in some states judges, our voices are heard through a vote we cast on a ballot. Not only does our vote determine how our government will continue to run, it can change the way we live our lives. When it comes to judges, however, the process can go one of three ways. They are either appointed by an executive member of the state, which must be approved by the state senate, they can go through a retention election, or they can run in an election like other officials run for office. With that knowledge, some people believe that judges should only be appointed, while others believe that
In this paper, I will further discuss the potential benefits and downsides of electing a judge, and whether or not I believe that judges should be elected. When electing a judge, I feel it helps us better understand what that judge stands for, much like we better understand a presidential candidate while they are running for office. It allows for the people to know who exactly is running for this seat, and whether or not they really are capable of doing so. If we get to know our judges, we get to know where they stand on certain policies, and how they plan to enforce such policies in the area we live in. Not only is this beneficial in terms of creating an aura of awareness, but it also helps the person running for the seat build credibility in the eyes of the people. On the contrary, some may argue that electing judges is the complete wrong way to go. Some believe that people are just not qualified enough to vote for these judges. If an executive member appointed a judge, it would be a more credible choice because like many others, one would assume that the executive member knows what the job entails, and essentially whether or not the person they have appointed has the qualities needed to fulfill such
When electing a judge, I feel like it could encourage people to actually vote, and get their voice heard, but on the contrary, not many people are educated on the job of a judge and what it entails. If a judge was to be appointed by an executive official, it could definitely help deter any sort of “you helped me, so I’ll help you,” situations. After looking at the evidence on both sides, I think I lean more toward the executive official simply because it seems safer, and I would trust the decision of someone who is actually more knowledgeable on the subject. Credibility is a big deal to me, and this matter seems to be one that should be handled by those who are capable to handle it. Many of my friends have told me that when they go vote, they just tick random names for other positions which aren’t presidential simply because they have no idea who these people are. Not only is this terrifying, but it goes to show the lack of knowledge that the people have on matters other than the presidency. I don’t know that I would suggest a change to the Texas court system, because I haven’t really heard or read about anything that is particularly disturbing other than the fact that some people get years in jail for possession of marijuana, which I find to be a waste. There are bigger things happening that people need to get years