Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The interesting numbers are that Madison and Milwaukee gave her a 120k vote bonus and she won by 110k. This means she was competitive across the stat before you gave her the benefit of the two D strongholds.
I don't understand why cities are always brushed aside as if we don't matter. Virtually half of WI lives in either the Milwaukee or Madison metros. So yes, what we want does and should matter just as much as all the rural inhabitants. Just because they're spread out doesn't mean they're more real or more important than us city dwellers.
Frankly I think it is the wrong model, because it makes the justice system appear much more political. Granted a governor could make political picks, but over the years many a governor has picked people based more on qualification than ideological rigidity.
Sadly influences outside of the state can also play a part with money and manpower for elected judges.
It also makes judges have to run for office, which means they could beholden to special interests.
Needless to say my state has the governor pick the SC justices, and that seems like the better model.
`
My thoughts exactly. I have lived in other states that do the same as WI.
I don't understand why cities are always brushed aside as if we don't matter. Virtually half of WI lives in either the Milwaukee or Madison metros. So yes, what we want does and should matter just as much as all the rural inhabitants. Just because they're spread out doesn't mean they're more real or more important than us city dwellers.
Yes, we see this argument put forth by the right all the time. If not for all those city inhabitants, conservatives would win everywhere! So what? Cities encompass the majority of the population, and it's the actual population who decides elections, not empty or sparsely populated land mass. Land doesn't vote, people do.
It's a stupid argument, but you see it here again and again and again, as if it has any merit whatsoever. It doesn't.
Many states, including Texas, do elect their judges (for varying terms).
As an attorney, I have long viewed with displeasure and suspicion our system of electing judges. We have had some very bad judges, at all levels and parties, whom were elected simply because they mouthed correct political platitudes for the era, or road a political 'wave' into office.
Here is a handy website, showing how each state chooses its judges and/or justices for their respective Courts:
Note that some states, like Texas, have 'partisan' elections (meaning, run as D or R), while others (like Wisconsin) have 'non-partisan' elections (meaning, the candidates do not actually run under a party banner).
Of course, having the Governor appoint judges/justices also introduces partisan politics.
I suppose there is no perfect way to get qualified people into office.
I am an attorney in Utah and I share your concerns about electing judges. In Utah, judges run on an unusual ballot. They have no opposition and do not declare themselves republicans or democrats. The only name that appears on the ballot is the name of the incumbent judge. However, he/she must receive at least 50% plus one vote to retain office. In fact, the election is called a "judicial retention election". On the whole, I think our practice in Utah is a good one. Judges should not have to run political campaigns to obtain office or stay in office. They should be concerned instead with judging each case in front of them on the facts and the law and coming to a just resolution. I am grateful we do not have a partisan system that they have in many states.
However, I do believe there needs to be some accountability on the part of judges. We attorneys realize that not all judges are the same. Most diligently do their work and struggle to do it correctly. However, a minority of judges are not diligent, are not unbiased, and are not hard working. When this behavior reaches a certain point it ought to be possible to remove a judge from office even if he has done nothing outright unethical or criminal. Retention elections are one way of dealing with this problem. I think other systems that require judges to receive satisfactory ratings from a majority of lawyers who practice in front of them ought to be another means of weeding out bad judges. Bad judges need to be removed because of the burden they cast upon a system which struggles daily to maintain the belief from citizens that it offers a fair and just process to resolve controversies within communities.
Its something that needs to be discussed more than it is.
Yes, we see this argument put forth by the right all the time. If not for all those city inhabitants, conservatives would win everywhere! So what? Cities encompass the majority of the population, and it's the actual population who decides elections, not empty or sparsely populated land mass. Land doesn't vote, people do.
It's a stupid argument, but you see it here again and again and again, as if it has any merit whatsoever. It doesn't.
I'm the poster who brought up the Dane/Milwaukee vote not being the main tipping point. My comment seems to have been misunderstood. The margin of victory in those two counties was only 10k more than the overall margin of victory. So she had done well enough in the rest of the state to not depend on vote totals from city voters overcoming rural voters. Typically Virginia and Pennsylvania fall into the category of the two different voter types counteracting each other. Last night the strong D metro voters only provided margin of victory.
Realistically some votes always carry more weight than others. In the last election Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania votes mattered more than South Carolina, California, Wyoming or New York since the former states decided who would hit 270 and the latter were all in the bag for the candidate of one party.
I'm the poster who brought up the Dane/Milwaukee vote not being the main tipping point. My comment seems to have been misunderstood. The margin of victory in those two counties was only 10k more than the overall margin of victory. So she had done well enough in the rest of the state to not depend on vote totals from city voters overcoming rural voters. Typically Virginia and Pennsylvania fall into the category of the two different voter types counteracting each other. Last night the strong D metro voters only provided margin of victory.
Realistically some votes always carry more weight than others. In the last election Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania votes mattered more than South Carolina, California, Wyoming or New York since the former states decided who would hit 270 and the latter were all in the bag for the candidate of one party.
I did understand your post wasn't an assault on cities. I apologize if you felt attacked. I was simply using it as an example of cities regularly being called out. It wasn't the point of your post but I, like the other poster regularly see cities considered dismissive in favor of what "the real voters" think. I probably shouldn't have quoted your post.
It is surprising (and encouraging in my eyes) that Dallet had solid support throughout the state. Hopefully that is what Walker is seeing and not just blaming his chosen candidate's loss on "the cities".
Wisconsin is a little unusual in that the most heavily Republican areas are not the rural counties, but the major suburban counties of metro Milwaukee. The Democratic aligned candidate did very well in some of the counties with smaller cities home to state universities, like La Crosse, Eau Claire, and Stevens Point. Also pretty much anywhere within Madison's media market voted on the Democratic side this time, even the rural areas.
So I think it's fair to say that the Democratic path to victory in the state (e.g. against Scott Walker this fall) involves a good performance in a variety of areas, not just the two big cities. The governor certainly comes across as worried about his re-election prospects, and just think that three years ago he was one of the most likely presidential successors to Obama.
Walker warns GOP 'at risk of a #BlueWave' after Democratic win in Wisconsin court race
On the heels of a major swing in Democrats' favor in a state Senate race in Wisconsin earlier this year, it's the latest indication that the political ground has shifted since President Donald Trump and Republican Sen. Ron Johnson won there in 2016.
Walker, who is up for re-election to a third term next fall, tweeted that the results were another sign that the GOP is in trouble.
Frankly I think it is the wrong model, because it makes the justice system appear much more political. Granted a governor could make political picks, but over the years many a governor has picked people based more on qualification than ideological rigidity.
Sadly influences outside of the state can also play a part with money and manpower for elected judges.
It also makes judges have to run for office, which means they could beholden to special interests.
Needless to say my state has the governor pick the SC justices, and that seems like the better model.
`
I was shocked as well. There are trade-offs to elected vs. appointed IMO and I've read articles on that as well as had conversations with my lawyer friends as to what they think.
For example, my 3 good lawyer buddies are 2 solid left liberals and 1 solid republican....yet all 3 of them were talking about an appointed judge in the area that was put into the slot not due to ability but due to politics. They comment that the bar gives rankings based upon lawyer ratings and this judge is pretty much rock bottom.
On the other hand, they note that voting isn't any better because the voters don't know which candidate is a good judge or not.
Consensus opinion is that appointment is best but that they should take into account ratings from the bar about how well the judge is doing their job....to weed out the political appointees done for various reasons.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
