Doest it seem fair that, due to a democratic senator's sudden illness, the whole democratic voting process would be negated by giving the Republican governor the right to appoint any one he wishes to replace the recently appointed Senator. Especially when this move (which would negate the vote of the majority of the people) would then give the equivalent to a power majority to Republicans while it was clear that the US people want a change in the Senate and the Congress. This seems like a huge flaw in the voting process. What do you think?
2006-12-14 16:10:53 · 10 answers · asked by newcalalily 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Its called POLITICS.
Been around the USA for a long time. That's why we create things like the Electoral College. Popular vote (by people like you & me) don't matter.
Technically everyone could vote for Candidate A, but the Electoral College could declare Candidate B the new President. All cause the Founding Fathers didn't really trust the voting public. And back then, to be a member of the "voting public" you had to own land.
2006-12-14 16:37:41 · answer #1 · answered by John Hightower 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Quite honestly, I don't know what to think of this situation. I don't know if there is a way to hold a special election for the people to vote for a new senator. But it just goes the way that too many things in this country have gone over the last several years. The people make their choices, be it for congressional representatives, taxes or laws, only to have some group sue the state to have the newly voted in person/tax/law overturned. Two of the most obvious examples of this are the arguments over homosexual marriage and the right to abortion. I am not getting into a discussion about it, but just bringing it up as an example of how a small group can sue over a law they don't agree with and nullify the voice of the majority.
Maybe our whole governmental process needs to be revamped to allow for instances such as the senator's unforeseen illness.
2006-12-14 16:19:29 · answer #2 · answered by SSG M 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is legal by the Constitution. The 17th Amendment says:
"When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such 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."
One thing to remember is that the Senate is NOT to represent the people. It is to represent the State's right in the federal government. It wasn't until 1913 that the 2 Senators were elected by a vote of the people.
A question I have for is: How do you know Johnson was voted in because he was a Democrat, and not because he was the best candidate? I never vote for the party, but for who I feel would be the best person for the job. Sometimes it is Democrat, sometimes Republican, and sometimes third party.
2006-12-14 20:55:36 · answer #3 · answered by Mutt 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a bit of an assumption that they voted for a party rather than a representative. Perhaps they did, maybe they just really liked Sen. Johnson. But it all comes down to the State's constitution and thier own laws. State's rights to set their own precedent and govern their own affairs is what gives the right. Sure, if this was happening to a republican with the threat of an overturn of power, I would be upset too. But in the end, the State sets it's own policies through it's own constitution.
2006-12-14 16:20:49 · answer #4 · answered by lizardmama 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I seriously doubt Tim Johnson will be leaving the Senate. Of course, if he can't be present for votes, ties will be broken by the VP. They'll probably come to a compromise seeing that he is a sitting member. Committee assignments will be in favor of the Democrats since they have the majority and this will affect the bills that go for a vote.
2006-12-14 17:31:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes it's wrong.
For example.
In the UK if a Member of Parliament dies they hold a bye-election.
In other words the people get the opportunity to vote again.
It still beats me how the US can consider itself a democracy
2006-12-14 16:27:58 · answer #6 · answered by rosbif 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's not that big of a deal. It is a big chore to get congress and senate people up out of bed to vote anyway.
2006-12-14 16:15:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I say let his wife serve!!!
2006-12-15 04:43:24 · answer #8 · answered by Christopher McGregor 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it's called checks and balances, it's what he gets to do.
2006-12-14 16:16:52 · answer #9 · answered by Tara 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I blame the nazis.
2006-12-14 16:18:22 · answer #10 · answered by Jade 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋