Wizarding World Elections?? ..Ref.. a vote.

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 116736


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, chnc1024 at A... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/29/2004 4:28:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
> chnc1024 at A... writes:
> 
> Since we've been on the topic of the elections I had a few
> questions.  Has anyone noticed if the WW votes on anything?
> Is the MoM elected or appointed??  Any thoughts??
> Sorry I forgot to sign this! 
> Chancie

bboyminn:

I believe there is a mention in 'Quidditch Through The Ages' of some
one saying 'so-and-so wouldn't get my vote, if I had one that is'. Not
a direct quote but close enough.

My impression is that most, if not all, Ministry officials are
appointed, but I think the general concensus and opinion of the
population is polled or at least considered in making the appointment
of the top officials. Populare opinion may not be an official vote,
but it does represent a vote of confidence or no confidence, and it's
difficult for a leader to lead without the confidence and indeed
consent of the people.

We really don't have much to go on, but I get the sense of a world
that is ruled by committees. As a reference point, there is an old
saying that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. We see that
the high court (Wizengamot sp?) is just a committee. In the pensieve
scenes, Harry hears the court vote on the verdict and that implies a
jury, but when we see Harry's own trial, we see that the vote is taken
by a panel of judges. Also, defendants don't seem to have an advocate
or lawyer to guard their rights and insure a fair trial. Indeed if
Dumbledore hadn't shown up to speak on Harry's behalf, he would have
likely been 'railroaded' in a second. There is a mention of a (I
believe it's called) Wizard's Charter of Rights, but there doesn't
seem to be anyone there to insure the Charter of Rights is enforced. 

In theory, this trial by a panel of judges seems like a good idea. The
judges are experienced and knowledgable in the court procedure, and
are there to insure that the accured gets a fair trial. But it's a bit
of a conflict of interest when the people prosecuting you are also the
people responsible for making sure you get a fair trial. And as we can
see from Harry's case, the seemingly well intentioned courts have a
very high potential for corruption and abuse.

Just a few thoughts.

steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn)