GR -- No, it is not an "inferior" system. You're judging it that way based off of a hegemonic and patriarchal point of view. The system that is "best" is the one that works the best for the society as a whole.

And the talk of "ease" is most certainly not a red herring. There's no reason to delve into a more complicated "solution" when a simpler method would be just fine. "Ease" wasn't a factor in the last election and we can all see how well that turned out.

I'm tired of the argument that electing justices into distinct seats is a "terrible" idea. It seems to be garnering more support than the options you've been putting on the table. Most of our elections are "horrible uncompetitive," what's the difference of a few more?