As long as a committee has democratic oversight democracy can still fix any problems as you wish. But it's much more efficient and successful most of the time.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But by that logic there's no reason to ask millions of unqualified people to pick an expert and professional legislator.

You're creating an arbitrary professional difference between creation of legislation and interpretation of legislation, but that's ideological. When it comes down to it, by your logic, legislators should be chosen by an unbiased selection committee. That's where your antidemocratic logic leads.

[–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There are no illusions that politicians are experts.

Authority given to a judge is because of expertise, not in order to represent.

Elect representation, select expertise. Ensure oversight for both situations.

I've said before oversight is already in place be a democratically elected official. So stop with the silliness in claiming I'm antidemocratic.

The difference between you and me is you're sprouting ideology and I'm explaining how a good system actually works in the real world in my country.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Okay, and I'm responding to how a bad system actually works in the real world in my country. The lack of democratic input and oversight of the Judiciary in the US is the problem. US judges have always been bad because they were either appointed to undermine democracy or elected by undemocratic means. The problem has never been democracy.

[–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes, but your country being unable to have sensible judicial selection and poor judicial elections is not an argument for anywhere else.

The US ranges from failure to bad.

Other countries range from the good to the point other countries refuse to replace their own court system in order to continue using the good judiciary that's trusted internationally.

Using the US as an example to follow in this case is a bad idea. Even if removing selection from the US system would be an improvement, it isn't relevant anywhere else.

Especially when discussing an ideological law like making elections compulsory.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

Mexico, being a US neighbor, is probably basing some of this decision off of the shit show happening across the border. I suppose that does bias their decision making.

I guess we'll see how it works out, since this looks like a done deal.