Socrates,
My views on the subject of this thread are evolving as I learn more about this system, and I’m sure will continue to evolve. However, there is certainly room for improvement. The only thing that one can depend on remaining the same is change. I expect this system will experience changes also, and i intend on making my contribution. Thanks for your continued interest, and I’ll continue my volunteer work and expressing my views on this subject here and possibly elsewhere.

An unfinished analysis of the “voter election” Selection method for Florida Circuit Court Judges has revealed the following statistics:

2008 Election Year:  95% of incumbent judges were reelected without opposition.
2006 Election Year:  96% of incumbent judges were reelected without opposition.
2004 Election Year:  94% of incumbent judges were reelected without opposition.
2002 Election Year:  97% of incumbent judges were reelected without opposition.
2000 Election Year:  95% of incumbent judges were reelected without opposition.
1998 Election Year:  90% of incumbent judges were reelected without opposition.
1996 Election Year:  90% of incumbent judges were reelected without opposition.

Poor signal.

These statistics illustrate “an insufficiency of means” for voter removal of incumbents from office.

These statistics illustrate nothing. They are only numbers that you read your personal dislike of the judicial system into. You haven’t even begun to make a rational case to support your views.

Socrates,
These statistics are not “raw.” I don’t see how they can be interpreted any other way. In each Judicial Circuit Court election from 1996 to 2008, only between one in ten, and one in twenty-five incumbents faced an opponent. How can you possibly argue that voter election is a sufficient means for removing unsatisfactory appointed or elected incumbent Florida Circuit Court Judges from office? It is a no brainer.
Listen, I was stunned to see this as I had no idea this was the case. I like most residents have been largly kept in the dark as to where local Judicial leaders came from. This data just covers the qualifying phase of the election process for Judges. Let me get this information together, and I’ll provide the “bounce the rubble” phase of denying voters a say in who their Judges will be and who they will not be.
There is one thing I know. This is that there are many people who are dissatisfied with our Court system and the legal profession, yet citizens do not currently have the means to do anything about it.

Please correct that to one in ten and one in thirty-seven.

If you don’t see how the statistics you cited can be interpreted any other way, your personal biases have destroyed your objectivity. Let me point out a few of many possible alternative interpretations. Judges get elected or re-elected without opposition because other qualified people simply don’t want to be judges. Or maybe they don’t want to jump through the hoops associated with running for public office. Or maybe they can’t afford to run. Or maybe they can’t stand the pay cut. Or maybe they don’t want to put their loved ones at risk of being retaliated against by angry criminals or legal contestants. Or any combination of those or other reasons. And how did you determine that most residents are in the dark as to where local judicial leaders came from? And if those residents are in the dark, do you really think it is because they have been “kept” there against their will? Could it be that they just don’t care because they live their lives in a way that doesn’t bring them into contact with those judicial leaders? And just who are these many people who are dissatisfied with our court system and the legal profession? And what was it that brought them into contact with the system and those professionals in the first place? And how many of them are dissatisfied because they lost a battle in court? And what qualifies them to determine if a judge’s performance is satisfactory or not? I could go on. But if you don’t get it by now, what’s the point.

I accept your partially accurate but incomplete explanation as to why there is an “insufficiency of means” for voters to select who their Judges will be and who they will not be.

I would respectfully ask as you have ask of me earlier in this thread, what knowledge and qualifications do you have for expressing you opinions here?

Request denied. Since I have not used this forum to try to sway public opinion or to make specific claims about any governmental entity or group of professional practitioners, my knowledge and qualification are irrelevant. You on the other hand have repeatedly done so. I have only asked you to present evidence and list your qualification that would compel us to believe what you say. I might give your oppinions consideration without knowing anything about your qualifications if you presented verifiable facts. But aside from presenting meaningless numbers, all you have done so far is give us your personal opinion about the judicial system and its practitioners. As gritshifter pointed out, this is only a message board and no one, including you or me is required to post their qualifications before posting their opinion. You’re free to keep posting your opinions here without evidence, and I’m free to continue challenging those opinions. Carry on.

The reason I asked is because you do not seem to be following along with the direction these facts seem to be leading. But, I do think you are trying to influence opinion of any readers as you provide baseless arguments in defense a system obviously flawed on a number of different levels.

The statistics presented thus far were computed based on raw data available at the Florida Department of State’s election web site should you choose to verify them. Although, I may have miscounted a bean or two the numbers should be considered very accurate. Also, I want to discuss further some of the questions you posed in your earlier comment. Some which I agree with and some with which I disagree, and I will provide statistical data to rebut anything with which I disagree. However, I first want to continue to examine the next phase of the voter selection process, the “bounce the rubble” phase. It may take me a few days to gather the information.

I’m looking at the numbers you present. Since there are so many other variables, I just don’t think those numbers can be rationally used to reach the conclusions you have reached. Since my exchanges in this forum thread have been only with you, and to a lesser degree Gritshifter, it should be self evident that I’m not trying to influence the opinions of other readers. I’m not even trying to influence your opinions. I’ve only asked you to back up your opinions with something other than ambiguous numbers. And I am not an apologist for the judicial system. Yes, it has flaws. Most human devised systems do. But in my personal experiences, when those flaws are traced to their roots, the flaws are found to be in a small number of individuals within the system rather than in the system itself. Since there will be failures within any system as long as there are humans involved in those systems, I don’t think it is prudent to discard or alter a system based on the personal failures of a few unethical people within that system. And I don’t think it is wise to allow a small group of people who think they have suffered personal harm at the hands of those unethical people to bulldoze the system to satisfy their desire for personal retribution.

This really is off topic but here’s the link anyway:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/state/article497666.ece

The title: Lawyers feeling the Florida Legislature’s love again

Guess its clear where Governor Crist stands on Florida lawyers intention to continue to feast on the residents. It’s a major disappointment but I suspected so. We need some turnover this year in the legislature with their swing to favor the legal establishment, and their primary move fiasco, etc..,.

Socrates,
I have only reached one conclusion with these numbers and this conclusion cannot be argued against. Voters do not have a choice as to whether they are going to continue with the same local judicial leaders (judges) or make a change as there are rarely alternatives choices. They do not have this choice even if they are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the levels of performance of these elected individuals.
I want to address one other issue regarding the voter input process. Then I want to discuss some issues you have raised with your questions, and offer a reasonable, mainstream solution that I am going to promote here and elsewhere.