You're talking about two different things. My quote there is about juries and how they operate. You keep trying to bring everything back to how judges are chosen -- when that wasn't the topic or what my sentence was referring to.

"You're quite aware of why that is, so I won't go into detail..."

I actually have no idea what you're even trying to say. You're trying to change the topic (to one that I'm not really interested in, and that you're not describing very accurately -- judges facing retention elections in certain situations or some towns here and there having an election for a judge is a bit different than "Americans vote in their judges")

It's kind of like, there could be an article of a German Sheperd biting a child, but "German Shepherds bite children" would be a kind of sensational and meaningless statement, unless you want to be more precise. (And I'd probably just assume you want to paint German Shepherds in a negative light rather than talk meaningfully, if you framed it like that.)

If you do a google search for "how are US judges chosen" I think you'll see that in general they're appointed by a government official or committee. And you can always appeal to higher courts if the small town court in Wisconsin is truly worrisome.

Usually when people say things like "I think you obviously know what my point is here" it's because they don't actually have a point.

Personally I'm on the fence whether electing a judge would be worse than elected officials choosing them. It brings political motivation to the bench either way.

Which is why I propose changing the whole incentive structure.