This is the other one of only two comments to mention this obvious solution, and neither one of them was moderated upwards. Slashdot really has fallen on hard times, eh? This approach would effectively eliminate the Electoral College, and is already more than halfway to becoming effective (as measured by Electoral College votes that have been committed to it).
Again, it appears that no karma bonus was used. Why not?
Should I complain that my comment about the coalition government solution was also ignored? Or just put it on the list of hard-times-at-Slashdot-and-no-one-cares?
On reflection, I do have one more thought about my earlier comment. I think the Judicial branch would be better off as a pure meritocracy with as little political (AKA partisan) political involvement as possible. One approach might be to nominate judges for promotion based on objective metrics of their judicial performance. The judges whose opinions are most often cited by other judges and whose decisions are least often overturned would be the top candidates. When a vacancy appears on a higher court, the top few candidates, perhaps 5, would automatically be considered for the position, and only if all of them were rejected for the promotion (and I find it hard to imagine why that would ever happen) would the process be opened up for other candidates.
I actually think one benefit of this kind of system is that the top judges would tend to be older and therefore not stay in place for so long. Then again, I don't think it would be bad to include special criteria that do favor younger judges, as long as the criteria are applied impartially. Perhaps reduce the penalty if a young judge is overturned, counting it as a learning experience? Or give extra credit for younger judges who spent some time teaching at law schools? Maybe even consider teaching at a law school as counting as much as being a judge in terms of judicial seniority?