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