Special elections vs. gubenatorial appointments for Congressional vacancies

[Nichlemn]

What are your opinions on how Congressional vacancies should be filled? In most states, Senators are appointed by the Governor and a special election is held to correspond with the next general election, while House seats are left vacant for usually no more than a few months before a special election.

I lean strongly towards combining elections to save money and time. Special elections can cost many millions in state funds, let alone the intangible time costs to voters. I really doubt the value added from having voters pick the guy for 6 months is worth that. (For this reason, I think Christie's decision to hold the NJ Senate election a month earlier was easily the most wasteful decision of his governorship, even worse than Bridgegate if he is responsible).

I'd have every Senate and House vacancy appointed, with special elections held at the general election in the case of Senate vacancies in seats not up that term (don't see a ton of point in 2 month terms). Perhaps there'd be some restrictions, like Wyoming's same-party pick.

[Nichlemn]

None of the above. Have each candidate run alongside with an official replacement to fill the term in case of vacancy.

Sort of like a party list/vice-candidate? Interesting. Does the candidate name the replacement? (Seems like it would be rather expensive if you had primaries for all these replacements, few of whom would ever win). And what happens if the replacement won't/can't take the office? Is there a special election then?

[Nichlemn]

Why not just use the "Miss America" method where if the winner wants/has to step down, the runner-up will assume the position?

I realize this would in practice mean the seat would automatically flip parties, outside of CA and LA. But maybe that would give legislators some incentive not to ditch their district in the middle of a term for self-serving reasons. It would also be particularly entertaining if the resignee were in a safe district where the other major party didn't even contest the seat, so they wind up getting replaced by a gadfly Libertarian/Green/independent for the remainder of the term.

I imagine if this was implemented, the number of seats uncontested by major parties would fall to virtually zero. Although, you could see a situation where "Independents" would run in safe seats with an elderly incumbent and campaign to be the runner-up.

[Nichlemn]

A somewhat unusual possibility, applicable to many countries: have each politician automatically pay a bond (probably garnished from their salary) which is used to pay for at least some of the costs of a special election. The idea is to deter politicians from resigning too easily, or running again when they know there's a high probability of them resigning soon. In particular, it would be a good way to counter "vanity" by-elections, like that of of David Davis in the UK, as well as Tariana Turia and Hone Harawira here in New Zealand.

[Nichlemn]

In particular, it would be a good way to counter "vanity" by-elections, like that of of David Davis in the UK, as well as Tariana Turia and Hone Harawira here in New Zealand.

Those are a thing in Westminster-system countries, but I can't think of a single case of a candidate resigning to trigger a special election they themselves run in in America. House elections are all so close to each other (every 2 years!) that it doesn't make sense.

True, but that same factor (elections being so close to each other) is another point against special elections for the US House. There's a smaller "democratic deficit" when you have an unelected politician holding a seat for maybe a year versus potentially several years.