Feingold: Amend the Constitution.

[blenderboy5]

Russ Feingold and I rarely agree on anything, but this is a really good idea. Stop appointments by governors and instead have a special election.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-appointments/

[ari1013]

This is the first proposed amendment in a long time that actually makes sense.

I can't see anyone disagreeing with this one. It increases democracy.

[cabernetluver]

Russ Feingold and I rarely agree on anything, but this is a really good idea. Stop appointments by governors and instead have a special election.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-appointments/

Ditto. Sounds like a good idea to me.

[SmthBluCitrus]

It has it's positives and it's negatives. I'm more for it than I'm against it.

Yglesias wrote about that one today:

Against Appointed Senators

Washington Post editorial page wisely notes that the past few months’ worth of Senate appointment chaos should serve as a reminder that appointed senators are a bad idea. We ought to do special elections.

This also reminds me of the reverse problem, namely that in the event of (God forbid) a mass-casualty terrorist attack on the U.S. Capitol, the requirement that members of the House of Representatives be replaced via special election could produce a disaster. In other words, if someone managed to somehow kill almost the entire congress during a State of the Union address we wouldn’t be able to stand-up a new House to authorize the needed response measures. The only reasonable course of action would be some kind of extra-constitutional rule by presidential decree and it might be difficult or impossible to actually return to the rule of law.

Ideally, then, the ordinary rule would be to replace Senators or members of the House via special election but to have some kind of special proviso for filling seats with appointees in case of a mass-casualty event.

[BroadwayJoe]

how could you NOT agree with this? it is democracy epitomized!!!

[behindmydesk]

I don't agree with it because liberals agree with it.

While I do support it, i'm glad it's not like this right now, because Blago has been highly entertaining.

[Hawkize31]

The 17th Amendment gives the Governors the right to do this.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

I think for Feingold's idea to work, the Congress would have to repeal the 17th Amendment and ratify a different version that didn't include the ability to appoint Senators.

[BroadwayJoe]

I don't agree with it because liberals agree with it.

While I do support it, i'm glad it's not like this right now, because Blago has been highly entertaining.

touche on both points

[SmthBluCitrus]

I doubt this ever even comes to a vote on the floor.

As super as this might be, it's also not really cost effective -- from a state perspective, it costs money to run an election. From a voter perspective, you'll see campaign fatigue, especially in terms of raising funds.

[b1e9a8r5s]

I doubt this ever even comes to a vote on the floor.

As super as this might be, it's also not really cost effective -- from a state perspective, it costs money to run an election. From a voter perspective, you'll see campaign fatigue, especially in terms of raising funds.

Agreed. Just from the state perspective. I have no idea how much it costs to hold a state wide election (I imagine it varies greatly from state to state), but where would a state come up with the money to hold one? California has a $42 billion deficit right now. So they would have to raise taxes to hold a special election if say Feingold (how ironic) died tomorrow? If it means more taxes for the people, then no ones going to be for it.

I confused Feingold and Feinstine for a moment, so not so ironic.

[blenderboy5]

The 17th Amendment gives the Governors the right to do this.



I think for Feingold's idea to work, the Congress would have to repeal the 17th Amendment and ratify a different version that didn't include the ability to appoint Senators.

Perhaps... or it could be similar to the amendment that repealed the amendment that started prohibition and start of saying "This amendment repeals the 17th." Then they could have everything in the amendment except the part that conflicts with the new idea, and add the new idea.

Idk, it's complex but I'm glad I'm not a senator I don't have to worry.