NationStates Jolt Archive

so usian senator russ feingold is proposing a constitutional amendment to end the whole governors appointing senators thing and mandating that all vacant seats be filled by having one of those election thingies. crazy, i know.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/26/11445/5789/428/689116

what does nsg think?

I like this idea.

Wait, Feingold thinks we should be more democratic? Who is this guy?

I approve.

will no one stand up for the rights of blaggo?

will no one stand up for the rights of blaggo?

I will. There, I did it.

I guess there is an argument to be made that special elections are costly and inconvenient, and I seriously doubt that the turnout in any special election is going to be substantial. Which will in turn lead to a radical to the far left/right of center being elected, since the low-turnout elections are composed mainly of those who care more than your average individual. At least if the governor decides who will fill the seat they care about their own political careers and will most likely put more of a centrist into the seat to please the masses.

I'm rather "meh" about the whole thing, but then against I'm rather "meh" about the 17th Amendment. Being an antifederalist I prefer the idea of the Senate representing the states as political units, rather than being a non proportional House of Representatives.

I'm rather "meh" about the whole thing, but then against I'm rather "meh" about the 17th Amendment. Being an antifederalist I prefer the idea of the Senate representing the states as political units, rather than being a non proportional House of Representatives.
Given the amount of gerrymandering in the House of Representatives, should the Senate return to its pre-17th amendment State, the people would lack any kind of competative election to the federal legislature in many areas.

If it's possibly to hold by-elections to the House of Representatives (I assume it is) then I don't see why the Senate can't.

so usian senator russ feingold is proposing a constitutional amendment to end the whole governors appointing senators thing and mandating that all vacant seats be filled by having one of those election thingies. crazy, i know.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/26/11445/5789/428/689116

what does nsg think?
Good idea, but it sucks as a Constitutional amendment.

Given the amount of gerrymandering in the House of Representatives, should the Senate return to its pre-17th amendment State, the people would lack any kind of competative election to the federal legislature in many areas.

Any kind of direct competitive election, that is true. Of course, having state legislatures select Senators may cause people to pay a bit more attention to state elections, which can only be a good thing.

If it's possibly to hold by-elections to the House of Representatives (I assume it is) then I don't see why the Senate can't.

I'm not saying they can't. In fact, if Senators were state appointed I'd be fine with mechanisms (in fact, I'd much less like the idea without these mechanisms) for the voters to remove and/or forcibly select Senators themselves through referendum.

The reason I don't mind state appointment of Senators is that it gives the states as states a say in the Federal government. Whether or not this is a good thing depends largely on whether you want the US to operate more as a large state itself or more like a federation of states.

having state legislatures select Senators may cause people to pay a bit more attention to state elections, which can only be a good thing.
You know, that wasn't changed for no reason.

The reason I don't mind state appointment of Senators is that it gives the states as states a say in the Federal government.
States already have a say in the federal government. Its called Congress. ;)

I'm sorry, that was snarky and I wasn't trying to be an ass. But you get my point.

Any kind of direct competitive election, that is true. Of course, having state legislatures select Senators may cause people to pay a bit more attention to state elections, which can only be a good thing.
On the other hand, I doubt it would do much good to turn state legislatures into proxy Senate elections. But then, I'm not an American, so I'm not sure exactly how often people vote for different parties for different offices, although from what I can gather, it seems pretty common.

I'm not saying they can't. In fact, if Senators were state appointed I'd be fine with mechanisms (in fact, I'd much less like the idea without these mechanisms) for the voters to remove and/or forcibly select Senators themselves through referendum.
The only problem I see with that is that in states that are narrowly divided between the two parties (and that, IMHO, accounts for most of them) every candidate could face a recall/retention election if the opposing party felt the wind was blowing in their direction. One would have to set a prohibitively high petition threshold, which could make it doable, though.

The reason I don't mind state appointment of Senators is that it gives the states as states a say in the Federal government. Whether or not this is a good thing depends largely on whether you want the US to operate more as a large state itself or more like a federation of states.
The logical solution for this is to revise and describe in more detail the vague powers of Congress in article 1 of the constitution, if you ask me.

You know, that wasn't changed for no reason.

I'm well aware of that, yes.

States already have a say in the federal government. Its called Congress. ;)

Should I have specified that I meant state governments as opposed to the people of those states?

I'm sorry, that was snarky and I wasn't trying to be an ass. But you get my point.

I get your point, but I don't think you're getting mine.

It's not that I'm opposed to direct election of Senators, if that's how the people of a state want their state to be represented in the Senate, but I'd prefer states had a choice in the matter. Other principles that La Follette and other reformers championed (recall, referendum, etc.) make it less prone to abuse then it was in their day.

Should I have specified that I meant state governments as opposed to the people of those states?
Why is there this distinction?

It's not that I'm opposed to direct election of Senators, if that's how the people of a state want their state to be represented in the Senate, but I'd prefer states had a choice in the matter.
I don't understand how the 17th amendment doesn't show that this is already true.

On the other hand, I doubt it would do much good to turn state legislatures into proxy Senate elections. But then, I'm not an American, so I'm not sure exactly how often people vote for different parties for different offices, although from what I can gather, it seems pretty common.

Yes, it does happen quite often.

The only problem I see with that is that in states that are narrowly divided between the two parties (and that, IMHO, accounts for most of them) every candidate could face a recall/retention election if the opposing party felt the wind was blowing in their direction. One would have to set a prohibitively high petition threshold, which could make it doable, though.

Quite right, those are definitely issues with the system. Of course, I think choosing state legislatures by proportional representation could make such a system viable, but I may as well wish for the moon if I'm going that route. I'd also love for US House delegations to be made larger and chosen by PR, but that's going even further into fantasy land.

The logical solution for this is to revise and describe in more detail the vague powers of Congress in article 1 of the constitution, if you ask me.

Agreed, although even an ardent antifederalist like myself recognizes the need for a degree of wiggle room.

Why is there this distinction?

A state government generally has different interests than the US House. For example, were the Senate chosen through state legislatures I'm quite certain something like the No Child Left Behind act never would have passed. Personally, I like the idea of having another check added into the checks and balances.

I don't understand how the 17th amendment doesn't show that this is already true.

It shows the people in 1911 wanted it to happen, and understandably at the time. Also, I'm quite sure people now wouldn't want to change the current system because it's not broken. I'm just saying that I'd prefer that the option were to be there, rather than mandated at the Federal level.

Yes, it does happen quite often.
Having thought about it, I doubt it would be a problem if the object is to represent state legislatures rather than the people. Plenty of other countries do it, and it doesn't bother them, although I don't know whether those countries vest as much power in their appointed houses as there is in the US Senate.

Quite right, those are definitely issues with the system. Of course, I think choosing state legislatures by proportional representation could make such a system viable, but I may as well wish for the moon if I'm going that route. I'd also love for US House delegations to be made larger and chosen by PR, but that's going even further into fantasy land.
Not as mad as you might think. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment) Or rather, not as mad 200 years ago. Proportional representation seems just as unlikely. It's not going to happen here in the UK with an entrenched three party system and plenty of minor parties who regulary contest elections, let alone somewhere as entrenched into the two party system as the USA.

Agreed, although even an ardent antifederalist like myself recognizes the need for a degree of wiggle room.[/QUOTE]
Of course.

By proportional representation you mean a sort of parliamentary system?

In my humble opinion, a hybrid system is probably the best. Governors should make immediate appointments to fill vacancies, and special elections should be held at the next general or primary election. That way we're no more than six months and some days from getting a voice on the new Senator.

The special-election Senator should then only maintain the office until it's the seats turn in the rotation again.

By proportional representation you mean a sort of parliamentary system?

nah, pr means that positions within a legislative body are determined by the share of the vote gained by a party (or whatever), rather than having, for example, the person with the most votes get a seat and everybody who voted for somebody else goes home and cries.

nah, pr means that positions within a legislative body are determined by the share of the vote gained by a party (or whatever), rather than having, for example, the person with the most votes get a seat and everybody who voted for somebody else goes home and cries.

That's what I meant, sorry I wasn't clearer. I associate that with parliamentary systems. I don't really think it would work here in the US though.

i dont think it happens often enough to require getting all ammendmentish about it.

let the various states decide how to deal with it themselves. i dont care how the next state over decides to fill a vacancy that happens less than once a decade.

so usian senator russ feingold is proposing a constitutional amendment to end the whole governors appointing senators thing and mandating that all vacant seats be filled by having one of those election thingies. crazy, i know.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/26/11445/5789/428/689116

what does nsg think?

Meh, elections to replace other elected people. Silly, silly.:rolleyes:

That's what I meant, sorry I wasn't clearer. I associate that with parliamentary systems. I don't really think it would work here in the US though.

parliamentary systems are more defined by the head of government being a member of parliament. lots of them have first-past-the-post elections.

and why wouldn't pr work in usia?

parliamentary systems are more defined by the head of government being a member of parliament. lots of them have first-past-the-post elections.

and why wouldn't pr work in usia?

Learn something new every day.

Short answer: weak parties. What is the usia?

Short answer: weak parties.

ah, but parties systems are structural outcomes. change the structure, change the parties.

ah, but parties systems are structural outcomes. change the structure, change the parties.

Well, who does the changing? Its kind of a catch-22.

parliamentary systems are more defined by the head of government being a member of parliament.

Mh, quite not.

Example, back in 1993 iirc, Ciampi, then head of the Bank of Italy, was appointed by the President of the Republic as PM, formed a cabinet and won a confidence vote, without being a MP.

Parliamentary democracies usually are defined by the head of the executive (cabinet, council of ministers) being appointed directly by the parliament or being appointed by the head of State and winning a parliamentary confidence vote.
This means that the head of State can revoke the PM mandate, and that the parliament can topple the cabinet and substitute it with another.
The penultimate power in parliamentary democracies belongs to... the parliament (the ultimate power belonging to the electors).

Mh, quite not.

Example, back in 1993 iirc, Ciampi, then head of the Bank of Italy, was appointed by the President of the Republic as PM, formed a cabinet and won a confidence vote, without being a MP.

weird. ok, change what i said to include a usually, and get rid of 'defined by'.

Well, who does the changing? Its kind of a catch-22.

we could do it directly. just call some sort of constitutional convention.

we could do it directly. just call some sort of constitutional convention.

Constitutional amendments still require a vote by the Congress and while I suppose the parties could be muscled into a deal if a supermajority of Americans wanted such a change, I doubt you could find the support.

so usian senator russ feingold is proposing a constitutional amendment to end the whole governors appointing senators thing and mandating that all vacant seats be filled by having one of those election thingies. crazy, i know.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/26/11445/5789/428/689116

what does nsg think?

I think it's a good idea...I also think I'm damn lucky to be able to vote for Senator Feingold.

...now if we can just get Kohl to stop buying his seat every six years.

so usian senator russ feingold is proposing a constitutional amendment to end the whole governors appointing senators thing and mandating that all vacant seats be filled by having one of those election thingies. crazy, i know.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/26/11445/5789/428/689116

what does nsg think?

Sounds expensive.

Makes sense. Gives NSG more tangible politics to talk about in the rebuilding months after a major election cycle, at least.

I'd support it. I find the concept of appointing a replacement to be a dubious circumlocution of the democratic process that gives political dynasties far too much power than they deserve. I mean, there was no reason why an airhead like Caroline Kennedy should've been considered for that Massachusetts seat...if she weren't a Kennedy, she would have been circling the drain faster than Sarah Palin. Let the people choose who represents them under all circumstances.

I'd support it. I find the concept of appointing a replacement to be a dubious circumlocution of the democratic process that gives political dynasties far too much power than they deserve. I mean, there was no reason why an airhead like Caroline Kennedy should've been considered for that Massachusetts seat...if she weren't a Kennedy, she would have been circling the drain faster than Sarah Palin. Let the people choose who represents them under all circumstances.
i dont think that governor paterson (of NEW YORK) ever considered her seriously.

and if he did, it was the money thing which always has to be taken into consideration when an election is coming up in 2 years.

Constitutional amendments still require a vote by the Congress and while I suppose the parties could be muscled into a deal if a supermajority of Americans wanted such a change, I doubt you could find the support.

to be fair, nothing is getting done if there isn't the support for it.

anyways, congress can be almost completely sidelined even within the amendment process spelled out in the constitution, though it would be difficult. but there really isn't a way to stop people from just calling a new constitutional convention if there was enough demand. and that wouldn't be bound by anything other than the principles of democracy.

this (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/29/19758/4363/900/690662) is brilliant tactically, and could incidentally help galvanize some support for feingold's amendment.

The Obama administration has been floating the idea of naming Republican Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.) to be Commerce Secretary, several Senate sources said Thursday.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Gregg’s nomination was far from a done deal, but remains a serious possibility.
If Gregg was appointed Commerce Secretary, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch would be empowered to appoint his successor, with no party restrictions. This would likely mean that the newest New Hampshire Senator would be a Democrat...and the 60th Democrat in the Senate

this (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/29/19758/4363/900/690662) is brilliant tactically, and could incidentally help galvanize some support for feingold's amendment.

Hello, filibuster-proof majority.:)

i live in new york state and i don't like paterson because he cut education funding and called for a college tution hike for public (state funded) colleges. i was a college student but am off now to get some experience(on the job training). it is a type of volunteering because i am unpaid. i will go back to college in august.
Senators used to appointed anyway, so it would be a conservative movement in a way.