> I prefer to decide for myself how biased the candidates
> have my fellow citizens vote as well.
I find those positions at odds to one another. Personally I don't want prosecutors to be neither appointed by elected officials nor elected. Though, I am more digging into that you think you might get a choice when voting.
Re-read what I wrote. I believe the grammar correct and it is clear.
Though, I'll illustrate with an example. Let's say the electorate is 10 people. You, 3 of your friends that think identical to you, and me with 5 of my friends that think identical to me. This is a 6 vs 4 situation. Now let's say we put up two prosecutors for election. One who will always try you unjustly, and one who will always try me unjustly. If there is an election, the 6 to 4 majority would not vote your way. Thus, despite there being a vote - you are not getting the choice of bias. Ergo, when saying (paraphrasing) "I want to choose the bias via vote", you are also saying: i am okay with others deciding the bias of a prosecutor against me
Your point is completely out of scope of what's being discussed. My comment was a reply to a comment saying "It's beyond stupid to elect people who are in charge of upholding laws and prosecute crimes." My argument is entirely and only an argument that prosecutors should be elected instead of appointed.
All this other stuff about language is not relevant and I don't care about your thought experiment because it's completely unlike the way elections work in the real world, and has nothing to do with me preferring that over a situation where one of the 10 people gets to pick the prosecutor!
My point is to demonstrate that a minority can be consistently oppressed by a majority. Thereby negating the vote of the minority. This is how people feel in northern California, eastern Oregon, and many other places.
My point is that appointments and elections are almost the same thing, nearly a distinction without a difference. Don't like the appointments, then vote for a different person. Bit of a distinction of representative democracy vs direct. Not necessarily that different. Almost entirely equally broken IMO.
> situation where one of the 10 people gets to pick the prosecutor!
That is not at all the simplification. We could change it that the 10 people are voting for someone to do the appointment of a prosecutor. Or we could flip it to a real world example where someone is in eastern oregon voting conservative, or someone lives in 1930s rural south as a minority.
The majority rule can lead to a bad path. Notably authoritarian regimes where the prosecutor promises to go after the minorities. Which has its examples historically throughout the world, including the US
> have my fellow citizens vote as well.
I find those positions at odds to one another. Personally I don't want prosecutors to be neither appointed by elected officials nor elected. Though, I am more digging into that you think you might get a choice when voting.
Re-read what I wrote. I believe the grammar correct and it is clear.
Though, I'll illustrate with an example. Let's say the electorate is 10 people. You, 3 of your friends that think identical to you, and me with 5 of my friends that think identical to me. This is a 6 vs 4 situation. Now let's say we put up two prosecutors for election. One who will always try you unjustly, and one who will always try me unjustly. If there is an election, the 6 to 4 majority would not vote your way. Thus, despite there being a vote - you are not getting the choice of bias. Ergo, when saying (paraphrasing) "I want to choose the bias via vote", you are also saying: i am okay with others deciding the bias of a prosecutor against me