Should Governors be allowed to appoint Senators?

[undeterred]

Poll question: Should Governors be allowed to appoint Senators?

Or should there always be a special election when a seat is vacated?

[onehandle]

1. Yes. This year more than any year is evidence.

We have three Democratic Senators heading for the Executive Branch, for God's sake.

Blago was an aberration.

[tritsofme]

2. I think direct election is always preferable.

No reason not to in this day and age.

[anigbrowl]

6. Agree.

I'm also glad that the Dem party has been mature about dealing with our embarrassments, accepting that sometimes our guys don't work out well and need to be answerable to the law, in contrast to the GOP rallying round characters like Craig and Stevens (not the entire GOP, but too many of them).

[ColbertWatcher]

3. Yes, but if a governor fucks up, he should lose all his powers. n/t

[laconicsax]

4. Senators should be elected by the state legislatures.

[napi21]

5. That would not be any different or better than the Gov. appointing them.

If you have, as you almost always do, a legislature dominated by a party, that's a guarantee a person from the dominant party would be nominated. I think it works out fairly well when a Gov. appoints a Senator to complete the term of the vacant Senate seat, and that person has to run for reelection next term. If they do what the constituents want, they'll be reelected. If not, they'll lose.

[Harry Monroe]

14. And what of the will of the people in the state they represent?? Should that be ignored??

Direct elections should ALWAYS be used to determine who gets the seat. To do otherwise is to thwart democracy and the will of the people they represent.

[laconicsax]

16. That's what the House is for.

The Senate was originally intended to be a careful, deliberative body that represented the states equally. The 6-year term was designed to shield Senators from the influence of rapidly changing public opinion and direct election undermines that. I'm seeing tons of knee-jerk reactions to the Blago scandal and the failure of the auto bailout which underscores this issue--'the Senate didn't do what I wanted, let's abolish the entire body,' 'Blago is corrupt, let's amend the constitution.'

As it stands, we have direct election of Senators. I'm fine with that. Changing the process to fill a vacancy would require a Constitutional amendment that changes the part of the Seventeenth Amendment giving Governors the power to appoint someone to fill a vacancy. If you're willing to go that far, why not just bag the whole amendment and give the state governments a voice in Congress.

[Sebastian Doyle]

7. As long as Diebold machines exist

We shouldn't make it any easier for Repukes to steal Senate seats.

[elleng]

8. Its up to the STATES

to decide how a Senator is selected; NOT a decision for Federal government to make; not in the U.S. Constitution.

[undeterred]

9. Right.

I like the states that let the people decide.

[slackmaster]

10. Having a governor appoint replacement senators saves the financial cost of a special election

Other than that, there's nothing particularly positive about it.

[undeterred]

11. The financial cost seems less important right now

than fair representation. By the time somebody gets to be a governor they are so entrenched in the world of political favors that it seems like few of them can do this part of the job well.

[dysfunctional press]

13. it's not just the cost of the election- it's the time and money for a campaign...

so people have a chance to have a decent field of candidates, and get to know them.

[dysfunctional press]

12. governors only appoint for two years- then there is an election...

elections- and campaigns especially, take time and money...that's why the governors have the appointment power- but only for a two year stretch- after which a special elction must take place, unless the regular election for the seat comes up first.

i say it's best for the governor to be able to appoint someone- albeit temporarily, so that a seat doesn't remain vacant for too long a period.

[DonEBrook]

15. Only Democratic governers.

...