Final answer:
The best system for choosing judges—partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, or merit selection—depends on the desired balance of judicial independence, public involvement, and judicial quality. Each system has drawbacks, such as low voter turnout in partisan elections, the potential for judges to misrepresent their values in nonpartisan elections, and questions of transparency and democratic accountability in merit selection.
Step-by-step explanation:
In discussing the best system for choosing judges and justices, one needs to consider the pros and cons of each method—partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, and merit selection. Partisan elections can reflect voters' political preferences but often lead to low voter turnouts and potential polarization of the judiciary. In nonpartisan elections, while judges are elected based on individual merits without explicit political affiliations, there is a risk of candidates obscuring their true values to appeal to a broader electorate.
The merit selection system attempts to focus on the qualifications of judicial candidates by utilizing a commission to screen potential judges, with appointed officials making the final selection. This system reduces the influence of political parties and electioneering, aiming to select the most qualified candidates based on their merit. However, the merit system also faces criticism regarding who decides on the criteria for ‘merit’ and whether this process is sufficiently transparent and democratic.
All systems have drawbacks, including the potential of non-accountability to the public in merit selection and the diminishing of the judiciary’s independence in partisan environments. Ultimately, the best system depends on the value placed on judicial independence, public involvement, and the quality of judicial performance.