|Quoting Lowrider (Reply 15):|
It doesn't. They still directly elect the Representatives, and the Senators would be chosen by the through those the people chose in state and local elections. Just as originally intended. In either method, how are the people not choosing their legislative representations?
I'm not saying that having state legislatures pick senators is anti-democratic; as you point out, an elected body is doing the selecting. However, it is more
democratic to have senators chosen directly by the people. The old system of choosing senators, like the Electoral College, was an expression of the Founders' fear of the "unwashed masses" having too much say over who their leaders were, a fear that as a society we should be past by now.
|Quoting DXing (Reply 18):|
Talk about setting up a scheme ripe for abuse.
How is it any more ripe for abuse than the current system? Both involve gubernatorial appointments, but in the new system those appointments would only last for a few months, rather than for up to 2 years.
|Quoting Slider (Reply 19):|
Lock this thread now---the irrefutable point was made in the very first response!
It is a usurpation of states authority. And Feingold, like many corrupt power-bloated bureaucrats, just want to continue to run roughshod over states and into areas that they should not go.
So the 14th Amendment was wrong too, then? Obviously, that's an extreme case, but the federal government has a well-justified history of forcing states to expand the democratic process. And your argument that states' authority is being usurped doesn't follow. Moving appointment power from the governor of a state to the people of a state would select a Senator more responsive to the desires of the state, not less. The people are the state, not the government.
|Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 20):|
I think what a lot of states (including New York IIRC) do is a reasonable compromise: they permit appointment until the next regularly scheduled federal election, at which point an election for the seat is held. The term is whatever length necessary to return the election to its 'regular' schedule (2 years in New York's case since Clinton's term ends in 2012). That way, you have a caretaker Senator but don't have to worry about a special election.
That's actually the case in all states that allow gubernatorial appointment - the appointment only lasts until the next federal general election.
Potentially useful information on ways of appointing new senators:
Fast special election, no interim appointment: 4 states (MA, OK
Fast special election, interim gubernatorial appointment: 8 states (AK, AL
No special election, gubernatorial appointment from same party as departing senator: 4 states (AZ, HI
, UT, WY
No special election, unrestricted gubernatorial appointment: 34 states (everyone else!)
From a political point of view, it's worth noting that we currently have 14 Democratic senators from states where their replacements would be chosen by Republican governors, and 14 Republican senators whose replacements would be chosen by Democrats. So in terms of removing partisanship as an issue, this is an opportune time to consider the amendment.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.