West Virginia Politics Discussion Post and Response (Essay Sample)

Name of Student:
Name of Professor:
Course Details:
Date of Submission:
West Virginia Politics Discussion Post and Response
Partisan election is a system of judicial selection in which voters elect judges for an initial term of office, after which time they are eligible to run for re-election. Those seeking office run as candidates of political parties. A nonpartisan election on the other hand is a lack of affiliation with a political party. In my opinion, reforms on the partisan election system will go a long way to restore public’s faith in justice. Corruption in any system damages public trust. About 87% of the general public believes corruption negatively affects politics and elections (White n.d). Most voters are cynical in their expectations, and often feel that corruption scandals are rife in the system.
Reforms will also improve civic participation through voter connection to candidates and instillation of ownership by voters to the system. It will be better for the general public to be involved especially in the nomination of candidates so that in the event of the candidate’s failure they will not blame the system. This will also ensure that a candidate is elected on merits of their justice credibility and not by their social status.
However, in addition to reforming the Partisan election system, the public’s attitude greatly needs to change and focus on people who serve justice and not personal interests. Owing to that, the public should not focus on campaign strategies and financial muscle of aspirants, as a self-serving candidate can stage a flawless campaign strategy leading to the downfall of an otherwise good candidate who would serve the people’s common interest.
Although changing the partisan system seems to be a major focus in trying to restore the public’s faith in the judicial system, it is not the only way. A better and a long-term solution would be if people with character ran for, or were appointed on merit, to the bench. This would require a substantial exercise of self-control on the part of the person appointing the justice to the bench. For better results yet, it should be autonomous without the pressure from friends because they fancy a particular person, family ties or whatever ties the person may have to the candidates.
The common fallacy of leaving the errors to be corrected by the people who come after should be completely wiped out. The next person says that the justice will be served by the next, the public forfeits its justice by electing another justice procrastinator into the bench, and so it becomes an endless circle of injustices.
There should be a law eliminating official ...