I see. No one can argue against you. You’re right and everyone who doesn’t agree with you is an idiot. Carry on and have happy life. Goodbye.

Socrates,
As you can see from my last post, I didn’t use the word idiot in my comment. However, the statistics are crystal clear and indisputably indicate what I have previously stated regardless of the reasons why they are what they are. I do hope you will continue reading this soon to end thread.
I will admit I have no more concern for or mercy for the corrupt individuals in the legal profession than they have for those whose interests come before them.

wassup - 12 May 2008 08:34 PM

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.

Exactly which judge are you overwhelmingly dissatisfied with?  Maybe you are dissatisfied with the entire judical process in itself. 

This voter (myself) has no reason to be dissatisfied with any judge in Florida.  I do not need a choice.  I do not need a change. 

It is going to take more than statistics to sway my opinion.  Why fix what is not broke?

The personal question is off topic but I now see that you see where this is going. I recognize that you are making a valid point and this is a major issue that will need to be addressed. I have narrowed my focus here to establishing facts and identifying both the problem and the most reasonable, effective, and attainable solution. Strategy is something else.

wassup - 13 May 2008 11:54 AM

The personal question is off topic but I now see that you see where this is going. I recognize that you are making a valid point and this is a major issue that will need to be addressed. I have narrowed my focus here to establishing facts and identifying both the problem and the most reasonable, effective, and attainable solution. Strategy is something else.

I am sorry but I do not see where your focus has been narrowed at all.  The only thing you have posted is statistics.  I can’t even see where you have identified a problem.  You are being vaugue not only in your responses but in the stating of your issue with the courts.  I would be happy to discuss this with you but I am going to need something to discuss first.

The overwhelming destruction of the democratic process that provides Floridians with their Constitutional guarantee of electing or reelecting their Circuit Court Judges occurs when for various and sundry reasons there are no challengers to the incumbents. As factually stated earlier, over the last seven elections, or the last twelve years, between 90% and 97% of incumbent Judges were reelected by default. No challenger showed up to contest the election. This 90% to 97% equates to between nine (9) in ten (10),and thirty-six (36) in thirty-seven (37) Circuit Court Judges remaining in their positions without opposition. At this point, for virtually all Floridians, Circuit Court Judges are not reelected at all. This fact, in and of itself, has destroyed what was intended to be a democratic process.
Now there is another phase of the election process in the rare instance where a Circuit Court Judge is challenged. This phase I referred to as the “bounce the rubble phase” for obvious reasons, as there isn’t much left at this point. I intend to discuss this phase shortly.

Gritshifter,
Those of us who seek to improve our legal system are never going to change the minds of those whose minds are already made up, or those who have a vested interest in the system remaining as is. The change will take place, however, with the support of a majority who are dissatisfied with the system, who understand the issue, and who recognize this is a better way going forward.

The following statistics are relevant to the “bounce the rubble” phase of the Florida Circuit Court Judge election process. These statistics reflect the registered voter participation percentages in the primary and general elections from 1996 -2006.

In 2006, 20% of registered voters participated in the primary election and 47% participated in the general election.
In 2004, 26% of registered voters participated in the primary election and 74% participated in the general election.
In 2002, 29% of registered voters participated in the primary election and 55% participated in the general election.
In 2000, 25% of registered voters participated in the primary election and 70% participated in the general election.
In 1998, 17% of registered voters participated in the primary election and 49% participated in the general election.
In 1996, 26% of registered voters participated in the primary election and 67% participated in the general election.

wassup - 13 May 2008 07:10 PM

Gritshifter,
Those of us who seek to improve our legal system are never going to change the minds of those whose minds are already made up, or those who have a vested interest in the system remaining as is. The change will take place, however, with the support of a majority who are dissatisfied with the system, who understand the issue, and who recognize this is a better way going forward.

wassup - It is possible to change my mind.  I have said that since the beginning of this abomination of a thread.  In order to change my mind, I need to have a reason.  I am sorry but just stating the fact that you are unsatisfied and I should be too just does not cut it.  You have not made any point at all.  You keep posting all of these statistics like they will blow my mind and make me think our whole judicial system is garbage and needs to be destroyed and created anew because you say so.  I am sorry but that line of thinking is asinine. 

One more thing....Where exactly is this dissatisfied majority of American citizens that you speak of?  Maybe that is one more piece of information you are going to intentionally hold back.

Gritshifter,
I appreciate your input...sometimes..., but I dislike your reference to this thread as an “abomination.” If you must put a label on it, please refer to it as an “Obamanation.” In business, change occurs from the top down. But as Obama has accurately stated, in our government change occurs from the bottom up. In other words, the stakeholders are not the stockholders that the CEO has to answer to, but it is us , the citizens, who government leaders must answer to.

In recognization of this fact, this thread has evolved into an early effort to establish the factual foundation for the need for us to revisit the selection method of Florida Circuit and County Court Judges in light of new information. As you may or may not know, our Florida Consititution has in place a method by which voters can change the method of selecting and rejecting Circuit and County Court Judges. In fact, the voters in Florida amended our Constitution several years ago to allow us to make that change.

I’m not done here yet though so I hope I don’t lose your attention. The effort will expand far, far beyond this thread and ultimately be successful.

wassup -

Let’s leave Obama out of this thread, it is complicated enough already.  Since you appreciate my input so much, please address the questions that have been asked of you.

Gritshifter,
Your personal questions are irrelevant to this thread. Many, many people have very good reason to be dissatisfied with our legal system to include the State of Florida Judiciary and the legal profession.

However, I’ll go on with this thread in which now I’m reviewing statistics relevant to the voter selection method of Circuit Court Judges in the State of Florida. I’ll come back to the “bounce the rubble” phase of the voter selection method next but I’ve corrected and simplified previous statistics to the following:

From 1996-2006, through six elections, approximately 84% of the total number of Florida Circuit Court Judge seats filled through election were uncontested. These numbers are further broken down as follows: approximately 94% of the total number of incumbents were reelected uncontested, while approximately 29% of non-incumbents were elected uncontested.

Next I’ll discuss the contested elections as this is the “rubble” of the voter selection process. This “rubble” is the 169 contested elections of Circuit Court Judges that have occured in the last six elections, representing approximately 16% of the total number of seats filled by election since 1996. These are the actual elections that have made it to the ballot where voters get to make a selection.

(edited for accuracy)

Wassup - My questions are not personal.  Where is this proof of corruption of our courts?  I am not going to run and hide like Socrates.  I am still waiting for your answers.

gritshifter - 20 May 2008 02:15 PM

Wassup - My questions are not personal.  Where is this proof of corruption of our courts?  I am not going to run and hide like Socrates.  I am still waiting for your answers.

Gritshifter,
While you are waiting, I hope you are not holding your breath. I’m not going to discuss my personal observations in this thread but have done some research and bean counting and concluded that there are very serious flaws, irreparable flaws, in the current method of selecting Florida Circuit Court Judges. These flaws are systemic in nature and so severe that I hope by passing along the information here in this thread, that perhaps some will consider what I have concluded. Maybe a few here and many later will agree that we here in the 10th Judicial Circuit, and in each of the 20 Judicial Circuits should exercise our Constitutional right to elect the alternative selection/rejection method for Circuit Court Judges. Before I write about the clear benefits of the alternative method, one of which is that it would give us greater control over our Judicial System and the legal profession, I want to finish explaining how the present system actually operates.

Of the almost 1100 seats that came up for election during the period 1996-2006, here are some noteworthy statistical facts regarding Circuit Court judicial elections;

-The outcomes of 50 elections involving an incumbent Judge was decided in the primary election and their names did not appear on the general election ballot,
-41 incumbents were reelected in the primary election,
-8 incumbents were defeated in the primary election,
-A total of 2 incumbents Judges facing a challenger were required to go to a runoff in the general election,
-1 incumbent was defeated in the general election,
-A total of 58 elections involving only nonincumbent challengers were resolved during the primary election and their names did not appear on the general election ballot,
-A total of 59 elections involving only nonincumbent challengers were required to go to a runoff in the general election,
-An average of 28.83% of registered voters participated in the primary elections,
-An average of 58.66% of registered voters participated in the general elections,
-The number of voters who participated in the primary elections were on average 49.28% of the number of voters who participated in the general elections.

gritshifter - 20 May 2008 02:15 PM

Wassup - My questions are not personal.  Where is this proof of corruption of our courts?  I am not going to run and hide like Socrates.  I am still waiting for your answers.

Gritshifter,
I’m not running or hiding. I just decided not to waste any more time attempting to have a rational exchange with Wassup. You and I have repeatedly asked him for evidence of the corruption that he says is there, and he has repeatedly failed to produce anything but ambiguous numbers. He see’s those numbers as evidence. It reminds me of a line from an old Doobie Brothers song. “What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.”
Good Luck
S.