Compare and contrast the different methods of selecting judges

What will be an ideal response?

An ideal response would be:
Judges and attorneys tend to like merit selection plans better than they do elections or appointments. Merit plans may actually reward merit—a study of judges in nine states found that judges chosen by merit selection plans showed a lower rate of state judicial conduct commission disciplinary actions than judges chosen through elections. Judicial elections also have their supporters. A Harris Poll conducted in 2008 showed that a majority of individual voters supported choosing state judges through the electoral process. Judicial elections are, however, low stimulus in nature with significant roll-off in those voting (reduction from those voting in races at the top of the ballot from those at the bottom). Nonpartisan judicial elections tend to show even higher levels of roll-off than do partisan elections since partisan elections provide the party cue to voters who are looking for a short-hand way of evaluating judicial candidates. Last, gubernatorial appointment also has its supporters. Supporters of this method cite two differences between appointed and elected judges. First, awards against out-of-state businesses tend to be higher in states with elected judges than in states with appointed judges. And second, tort reform—particularly limiting the financial awards in liability cases— seems to be somewhat easier to accomplish in states with appointed judges than with elected judges.