Feingold: End Senate Appointments

This is what I think


  • Total voters
    46
I agree with Shane on this one. Except, I dont think its a good idea to leave a senate seat unfilled for so long.

I think the absolute question is does doing this justify the cost?

Because in todays world where many states are in huge debt, does it seem smart to do something that will absolutely result in more cost to our local governments? Because special elections aint cheap.

Brazil's backup idea seems nice in theory. Saves election costs while allowing people to consent to a replacement.

sonorakitch said:
So we have a national body insert a figure poised to represent a small portion of that body? Rather than allow the portion of the national body to insert the figure?
I don't see how he's saying that Congress would appoint the successor. He's talking about state special elections here, especially when you look at the link:

"The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end. In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people. I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute."


This is allowing the portion of the national body (the consistency) to insert the figure as opposed to a single man.

amadeus said:
Not the feds place to decide how the state appoints the senator until the next election.
The states have to consent to the amendment.
 
The truth comes out...

;)

I'll assume you mean the 17th and say that my impression of state legislatures is worse than my impression of the people of the state at large. I suppose state legislatures picking Senators would make it possible for an incumbent to lose, but I think it would be unlikely to ever elect a Senator from the party which doesn't have the majority in the State House.

Oh my... :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush:

Yes, the 17th. Though, you know that whole women voting thing.... KIDDING!
 
I wish they'd make the senate operate like the parliaments of europe where you vote for a party in national election and they assign the seats.
 
I don't want to vote for a party. I vote for the person. In this last election, I actually voted for more dems than gop'ers, but it was a mixed bag.
 
It would only be for the senate.
 
I wish they would abolish the 19th amendment and return Senate seat appointments to the legislature. Make it like it was where they were more beholden to the State they are supposed to represent than the nation as a whole or the federal government.

While I agree with what you mean, I fail to see how taking away female suffrage would fix this problem.

(I think you mean the 17th Amendment, which I already proposed repealing.)

Edit: I see someone already pointed this out.
 
Bad Idea. It is not a problem that rises to the level of constitutional tinkering. Elections are expensive and difficult to just throw together and make fair in a short time. But that said, Feingold is great.
 
So as we can see, the Constitution has ALWAYS deferred to the State to fill vacancies. Any power grab by the federalies to prevent this is an attempt to scale back States rights.

What's with the bull about the Federal government taking power? This is about putting power back into the hands of the people, the constituents of the state.
 
This is about putting power back into the hands of the people, the constituents of the state.

No, it's not. The constituents of the state (Illinois) have decided they want their governor to decide. The Feds are saying, 'Hey Illini, you're dumb, try again.' We'll let you choose as long as you choose our way is not really a choice.

Not every state fills vacancies by gubenatorial appointment. Some mandate special elections, some let the state senate choose a replacement.
 
I would prefer to repeal the 17th amendment return the job of selecting Senators to the State Legislatures, which could still opt for elections if they so choose. There is no need for a special procedure for appointing replacements, especially on the Federal level.


I think this would be a fair solution, at least for the situations of 'vacancy' by promotion, to keep the political machine running smoothly. Special elections would be prefered in most oher cases though---e.g. death, impeachment.
 
I think this would be a fair solution, at least for the situations of 'vacancy' by promotion, to keep the political machine running smoothly. Special elections would be prefered in most oher cases though---e.g. death, impeachment.
That's two (or three, I don't know where VR stands) people against the 17th Amendment! Take that, Bill! :lol:
 
I wish they would abolish the 19th amendment and return Senate seat appointments to the legislature. Make it like it was where they were more beholden to the State they are supposed to represent than the nation as a whole or the federal government.

That didn't work. That's why the Constitution was amended. It's right as it is.
 
That didn't work. That's why the Constitution was amended. It's right as it is.

It didn't not work, either; you had good Senators before and good Senators after the switch.

I wouldn't switch it back, but it's not like it was badly broken before... unless I'm missing something pretty huge somewhere?
 
It didn't not work, either; you had good Senators before and good Senators after the switch.

I wouldn't switch it back, but it's not like it was badly broken before... unless I'm missing something pretty huge somewhere?

You don't get the Constitution amended without convincing an awful lot of people that it is in fact broken. ;) And beyond that, you had to convince most of the state legislatures to give up power. That doesn't happen on a whim.
 
Good idea, plain and simple. Letting the people choose their senators should be fairly uncontroversial, as should minimizing the importance of pay for play games.

Some people have brought up States Rights. Let me be clear here, I'm of two minds on the subject. On one hand, letting each state choose it's own laws, and act as an independent laboratory of democracy is great. However letting the states dictate anything to the national government is a travesty. As well, to be frank I find that States Rights is never the rallying call of anyone I would want to march beside. So from my point of view, the 17 amendment was a great thing for both national and popular sovereignty, and this amendment could be the same.
 
Miles, you just said "national government". I think that is where your confusion is coming from. We do not have a national government. We have a FEDERAL government. There is a difference.
 
Miles, you just said "national government". I think that is where your confusion is coming from. We do not have a national government. We have a FEDERAL government. There is a difference.

...a federal government is one which deals with matters of the nation as a whole. Unless we're somehow comparing the US with another nation, like say the UK, which is not a federation, the phrases mean the same damn things.

The statement "letting the states dictate anything to the federal government is a travesty" makes just as much sense. A federal republic does not mean that the federal government has to be weak. The United States is not a confederation.

Irish Caeser said:
I wouldn't switch it back, but it's not like it was badly broken before... unless I'm missing something pretty huge somewhere?
It did have problems.

Wikipedia said:
This process worked without major problems through the mid-1850s, when the American Civil War was in the offing. Because of increasing partisanship and strife, many state legislatures failed to elect Senators for prolonged periods. For example, in Indiana the conflict between Democrats in the southern half of the state and the emerging Republican Party in the northern half prevented a Senate election for two years. The aforementioned partisanship led to contentious battles in the legislatures, as the struggle to elect Senators reflected the increasing regional tensions in the lead up to the Civil War.

After the Civil War, the problems multiplied. In one case in the mid-1860s, the election of Senator John P. Stockton from New Jersey was contested on the grounds that he had been elected by a plurality rather than a majority in the state legislature.[1] Stockton defended himself on the grounds that the exact method for elections was murky and varied from state to state. To keep this from happening again, Congress passed a law in 1866 regulating how and when Senators were to be elected from each state. This was the first change in the process of senatorial elections. While the law helped, there were still deadlocks in some legislatures and accusations of bribery, corruption, and suspicious dealings in some elections. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906, and 45 deadlocks occurred in 20 states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating Senators. Beginning in 1899, Delaware did not send a senator to Washington for four years.
 
Miles, you just said "national government". I think that is where your confusion is coming from. We do not have a national government. We have a FEDERAL government. There is a difference.

Very true. Technically the United States is not a democracy, but a federal constitutional republic with certain aristocratic elements. That doesn't stop me from referring to the wonders of democracy. However, I did specifically choose the word "national' to make a point. The US is an odd bird, being very centralized by the standards of a federation, and quite decentralized by the standards of a unitary state. Since I was making a point about some of the more ridiculous aspects of states rights, I emphasized the United in the United States.

But let's get back to the real issue.

Namely, why is it better that a senate seat be obtained through connections, or pay for play dealing, or deals in smokefilled rooms?
 
Top Bottom