Replacement Senators..........

[Lincoln Republican]

With the appointment of replacement Senators, after a sitting United States Senator has died in office, or has resigned from office for whatever reason

should the Governor naming the replacement Senator be bound by the constitution to replace the Senator with a replacement of the same party, the same gender, and the same race?

Please discuss.

[Хahar 🤔]

No, that's ridiculous.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'd rather favor what Feingold once proposed: elimination of all senatorial appointments and instituting a quicker special elections.

Xahar, not that I disagree, but please elaborate

[Frink]

Ideally we'd leave appointment of replacement senators to the state legislatures.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

In Sweden MPs have designated raplacements who will get their seat if they resign or die. Of course this might only work with party-list systems.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

In Poland in a case of Sejm member death/resigation/removal, the next person on a party list takes a seat.

For Senate, there are special elections. No appointments,

[CatoMinor]

Ideally we'd leave appointment of replacement election of any senators to the state legislatures.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No, that's ridiculous.

QFT and QFT.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

No. Same party, perhaps, but certainly not any requirement for gender or race.

[Хahar 🤔]

In Sweden MPs have designated raplacements who will get their seat if they resign or die. Of course this might only work with party-list systems.

It's done in France, which has single-member districts.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Ok, but let's assume that there was an independent Senator.

So, in a case of "appointment from the same party", how would you possibly handle THIS?

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Ideally we'd leave appointment of replacement election of any senators to the state legislatures.

Why?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Ok, but let's assume that there was an independent Senator.

So, in a case of "appointment from the same party", how would you possibly handle THIS?

I suppose that the governor would simply be required to appoint an independent, as long as the partisan makeup of the Senate is unchanged.

But you're right, independents would be a problem.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Same gender and race, definitely not.  Same party? Possibly, but it would be a radical change as the constitution aside from the kludge of the twelfth amendment contains no concept of political parties.  Actually, I'd prefer a different radical concept, not filling in legislative vacancies mid-term.If the voters want an old, unhealthy, or politically ambitious legislator, let them pay a price for doing so.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Ok, but let's assume that there was an independent Senator.

So, in a case of "appointment from the same party", how would you possibly handle THIS?

I suppose that the governor would simply be required to appoint an independent, as long as the partisan makeup of the Senate is unchanged.

But you're right, independents would be a problem.

Exactly. Would it be according to the spirit of "not change makeup before voters can decide themselves" by appointing, for example, a Liberal Independent for a seat of Conservative independent?

Again, I'm 100% in favor of what Feingold was proposing early in 2009: no appointments, have quick special election and let the people decide. Just like in Oregon or Winsconsin.

[Frink]

Ideally we'd leave appointment of replacement election of any senators to the state legislatures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Unless you think the amendment process is illegitimate?

[Joe Republic]

Ideally we'd leave appointment of replacement election of any senators to the state legislatures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Unless you think the amendment process is illegitimate?

He's indicating his opposition to the 17th in general; not that it's somehow illegitimate.

[Frink]

Ideally we'd leave appointment of replacement election of any senators to the state legislatures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Unless you think the amendment process is illegitimate?

He's indicating his opposition to the 17th in general; not that it's somehow illegitimate.

That's probably the one "Libertarian" position on an issue that I just don't understand what planet their coming from on.

[silverpie]

Seems to me that the best person to decide who the replacement should be is... the replaced. There would need to be a procedure for this to be done in advance--in fact, I'd advocate having each candidate declare his intended replacement during the campaign, as one more way to evaluate the candidate. (Special elections should be held at the next reasonable opportunity given the state/local election calendar, but the constituency shouldn't lose its representation in the meantime.)

If my reading of the French Wikipedia article is correct, that is how France handles vacancies in the Assemblée nationale (their upper house is indirectly elected. primarily by delegates from city councils)

[Хahar 🤔]

If my reading of the French Wikipedia article is correct, that is how France handles vacancies in the Assemblée nationale (their upper house is indirectly elected. primarily by delegates from city councils)

This is correct in some cases. In other cases, a by-election is held. I don't remember what cases specifically lead to each, but Hashemite can tell you.

[CatoMinor]

Ideally we'd leave appointment of replacement election of any senators to the state legislatures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Unless you think the amendment process is illegitimate?

He's indicating his opposition to the 17th in general; not that it's somehow illegitimate.

That's probably the one "Libertarian" position on an issue that I just don't understand what planet their coming from on.

The House is meant to be the voice of the people, the Senate the voice of the state government. When the 17th Amendment was ratified the states lost their voice in government, Senators waste much more time running for re-election funded mostly in many cases by money from out of state. Chris Dodd was a good example of that, he raised little to nothing in CT because the people clearly did not want to keep him in, yet raised millions in out of state funding.

[Frink]

Ideally we'd leave appointment of replacement election of any senators to the state legislatures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Unless you think the amendment process is illegitimate?

He's indicating his opposition to the 17th in general; not that it's somehow illegitimate.

That's probably the one "Libertarian" position on an issue that I just don't understand what planet their coming from on.

The House is meant to be the voice of the people, the Senate the voice of the state government. When the 17th Amendment was ratified the states lost their voice in government, Senators waste much more time running for re-election funded mostly in many cases by money from out of state. Chris Dodd was a good example of that, he raised little to nothing in CT because the people clearly did not want to keep him in, yet raised millions in out of state funding.

You know, there's an (arguably) easier way to solve that problem that doesn't involve removing the popular vote for Senatorial Elections.

[feeblepizza]

Ideally, State Legislatures should still be electing Senators.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Ideally, State Legislatures should still be electing Senators.

Why?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ideally, State Legislatures should still be electing Senators.

Why?

First off, the main reason that reformers gave for forcing the States to elect Senators via the popular vote, that it would somehow reduce the influence of monied and/or special interests in the Senate has by the pure light of experience be shown to be demonstrably false.  Secondly, for better or worse, the power of the State governments are the most effective check upon the Federal government.  Having the Senate beholden to State legislatures would induce the Senate to give greater concern to the concept of Federalism.

However, even before passage of the Seventeenth Amendment passed, a number of State legislatures had already chosen to do as they had done with Presidential electors, and send them to the people to decide.  Even if the Seventeenth were somehow repealed, I doubt very many States would decide to remove the people's direct voice in electing their State's Senators.