The 101st Senator. (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 05:21:26 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  The 101st Senator. (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The 101st Senator.  (Read 3742 times)
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« on: November 17, 2011, 09:28:39 PM »

I've always thought it odd that the position of the Vice President exists. It's not a well defined position other than "back-up President." Probably the most important power they have to break a tie in the U.S. Senate. But I have an idea. What if the Vice President always had a vote in the Senate? So there would be 101 members of the Senate. 2 from each state, and the Vice President.

The only real difference is that the Vice-President would get to participate in the election of his successor when the election of the Vice-President goes to the House.

Personally, I think we should have at the moment 104 Senators, with the 101st to 104th Senators being Senators Carter, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. by virtue of being ex-Presidents. (Presidents who resign or are impeached would not get that privilege.)
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2011, 01:55:05 AM »

Personally, I think we should have at the moment 104 Senators, with the 101st to 104th Senators being Senators Carter, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. by virtue of being ex-Presidents. (Presidents who resign or are impeached would not get that privilege.)

Assuming they would be granted that position for the rest of their lives, I'm not comfortable with the idea of legislative officeholders not having to face the electorate on a regular basis.  The idea of GWB being rewarded for his piss-poor presidency with a lifetime role in a different branch of government is not a savory one.  Senator Carter would have been a member of the Senate for the past thirty years, and not had to face an election once.

Considering that they would be but a few out of many, it doesn't really bother me that this would be a lifetime office.  It does provide one answer to the question of what do you do with an ex-President.

I've always thought the idea of the losing candidate in presidential (and vice) elections should become Senator; opposition leader of a sort, while the VP would get a regular seat to balance things.

Nah.  If you don't win, you don't win.  The Constitution is silent on the issue of political parties, and what do you do when there are multiple losing opponents?  Would you really have wanted Governor Thurmond to go into the Senate after losing in 1948?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2012, 07:19:38 PM »

The Senate is the most important check that State governments retain on the federal government.  Thus, I do not like the idea of "stateless" Senators. 

Senators are not dependent on their home state governments.

Ever heard about a little thing called Seventeenth Amendment?

Some of us still hope for its repeal.  Rather than popular election, I'd have much rather seen the powers of the Senate limited.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 13 queries.