Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think States should get to determine how, when, and why replacements are appointed. Some have the Governors do it, some don't. Sometimes it depends on if there is enough time for an election.
A Governor seems a good choice if an election is not viable. He was elected by the entire State himself no less.
Governors should appoint an Interim Senator so the state is represented in the next session of congress, But the states would hold a specail election to fill the seat at the next regularly scheduled election date.
Yeah, if a state currently allows it, I see no reason why the current controversy should change that simply because a governor tried to abuse that duty/privilege - after all, virtually EVERY decision a governor makes could be open to corruption for a governor so inclined.
If the state has determined that they want those empty seats to be filled via appointment by the governor, then this controversy shouldn't change that. You don't change the rules in a panic because one guy abused the system. You punish that guy, and you remain vigilant so that it is less likely to happen again.
Each state should and does decide the process. There are plenty of opportunities for governors to be corrupt other than this. The only way to avoid it is to not elect corrupt governors.
In light of this controversy, do you think Governors should have the right at all to appoint senators?
No! I haven't researched it, but it most likely some archaic reason for this rule. Whatever it is or was, it should be ammened. Why should an elected official have the right to choose another elected official? I started to think about this when I heard that Sarah Palin could possibly appoint herself Senator if Ted Stevens had won and was not able to serve due to his crimes.
This makes no logical sense in this day and age. If the people of Chicago voted for Obama, why should they have to settle for someone that the Governor chooses? Now that we find out what a creep this particular governor is, I think that it makes the need for an ammendment even more critical.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
