We have all mail voting for city/district, regional, and health board elections. They all have a very low turnout – maybe 40%? Not sure. Health boards haven’t been around that long and have always been postal. ?20 years. Can’t remember. We voted in the others in person on the same day. Councils have been gradually changing to postal – mine did at the last election – one of the last.

On parliamentary election day, we vote in person, but you can vote early at a limited number of locations in each electorate. Not sure what the rules are because I’ve never done it. Low turnout is 80% – it’s usually higher, often well into the 90s. I think it was 79.something at the last election (2014).

@ j.a.m.

“37 states have early voting (Massachusetts among them), of which three have all-mail voting.”

I should have mentioned that that memory comes from the early 80’s.

Ha ha! Very good. I especially like the “permission” one. 😀

We’re posting simultaneously. 🙂

So you could argue that the government does appoint the judges, but I would say a point is made of keeping the appointments non-political.

Thanks for all the info. Indeed, we seem to do anything but keep the appointments non-political.

A couple of fun cartoons from the Alito confirmation hearings:

http://www.gocomics.com/mikeluckovich/2005/11/01
http://www.gocomics.com/mikeluckovich/2005/11/17

If all a state’s votes go to whoever gets 50% + 1 for example, which is how I understand it works for most states, it seems really unfair. More proportionality would surely help.

OMG yes! I am so in favor of doing away with the STUPID Electoral College! Also of letting everyone vote by mail. (Where that’s been implemented I believe overall participation has significantly increased.)

Here’s how it’s done, from: https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/about/judges/appointments

Judicial appointments are made by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Attorney-General.

For appointments to the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court, the Governor-General is advised by the Attorney-General who, by convention, receives advice from the Chief Justice and the Solicitor-General. For appointments to district courts, the Governor-General is advised by the Attorney-General who receives advice from the Chief District Court Judge and the Secretary for Justice.

Although judicial appointments are made by the Executive, it is a strong constitutional convention in New Zealand that, in deciding who is to be appointed, the Attorney-General acts independently of party political considerations. Judges are appointed according to their qualifications, personal qualities, and relevant experience.

Successive Attorneys-General have announced new systems designed to widen the search for potential candidates and increase the opportunity for input. Within the past 10 years the systems adopted by Attorneys-General have resulted in a more diversified judiciary. Judges have been appointed whose career paths have not been those of the conventional court advocate.

The convention is that the Attorney-General mentions appointments at Cabinet after they have been determined. The appointments are not discussed or approved by Cabinet. The appointment process followed by the Attorney-General is not prescribed by any statute or regulation. From time to time it has been suggested that a more formal method for appointment of judges should be adopted but that course has not been followed. There is no suggestion that the present procedure has not served the country well.

All superior court judges (Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court) are High Court judges. Section 6 of the Judicature Act 1908 provides that no person shall be appointed a judge unless he or she has had a practising certificate as a barrister or solicitor for at least seven years. This is the bare minimum for appointment as a High Court judge. Judges also require much more than just experience in practice. They must be of good character, have a sound knowledge of the law and of its practice, and have a real sense of what justice means and requires in present-day New Zealand. They must have the discipline, capacity and insight to act impartially, independently and fairly.

The governor-general is the Queen’s representative. The Attorney-General is elected to government as an MP, and appointed to that position by the prime minister. It’s an equivalent role to any other ministry such as Minister of Health, Minister of Education etc. All those people in NZ are first elected as MPs, then the prime minister selects the other ministers from the pool of elected MPs.

So you could argue that the government does appoint the judges, but I would say a point is made of keeping the appointments non-political.

“We don’t have elected judges, or judges appointed by government.”

So they just appoint themselves?

How does Citizens United help free speech? (I’m genuinely asking – I don’t see it, and I’m interested to know what the arguments in favour of it could be.)

We don’t have elected judges, or judges appointed by government. (Or police chiefs, or DAs, or any of the other multitude of offices you do.)

We have public elections for parliament, mayors and councils, regional councillors (for managing the environment and similar) and district health boards. All other local, regional and national government appointments are made on merit, including the CEOS of all government ministries and departments and the head of the Reserve Bank (who is independent). Our Supreme Court doesn’t make political decisions as SCOTUS is often accused of. They decide solely on the basis of law. Most people couldn’t even tell you their names, let alone who they would vote for in an election.

It must be really difficult handling all the different time zones, with the different closing times. I can imagine people sitting at home watching TV and deciding there’s no point voting.

I also think that the large number of states where the result is pretty much pre-determined and people think their vote won’t matter must make a difference, which is a fault in the design. We used to have a basic First Past the Post system, which meant parties were getting 15% of the vote but not a single seat in parliament. Also, the party with the most votes wasn’t necessarily the one with the most seats, so that was unfair too. We changed in 1993.

If all a state’s votes go to whoever gets 50% + 1 for example, which is how I understand it works for most states, it seems really unfair. More proportionality would surely help.

We don’t have compulsory voting, and 80% is a low turnout for us. Australia has compulsory voting, and just about gets it. I don’t like the idea of compulsory voting, but I can see the reasoning for it too. It makes people take ownership of the government, take an interest, and be involved.

37 states have early voting (Massachusetts among them), of which three have all-mail voting.