Democrats may face losing the Senate - really?

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm fascinated by this article and the possibilities it conjures - I would appreciate some US orgah's viewpoints.

In essence, a Democrat Senator, Tim Johnson of South Dakota has fallen very seriously ill. It appears that should Snr Johnson have to resign his post, the Republican governor of South Dakota would be able to appoint his replacement from whichever party he felt appropriate. If he chose a fellow Republican, this would bring the incoming Senate to 50-50, meaning that Vice President Cheney would have the casting vote. In effect, the Republicans would re-gain control of the Senate.

Now, I can understand the reasons for not having a new election (though a by-election would seem most appropriate) but it seems to me to be quite astonishing that a governor could even consider over-turning the will of the people, let alone have the power to do so.

Perhaps the article is misinformed. If not, how can it be ethical, let alone democratic, to allow this kind of power to a governor? If he took the partisan route, would the Republicans be seen in a darker light and suffer later on, or would no-one care? What is the Constitutional justification for this power?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I certainly hope that this turns into a merely academic exercise and that Senator Johnson fully recovers and takes up his seat.

[Lemur]

Perhaps the article is misinformed. If not, how can it be ethical, let alone democratic, to allow this kind of power to a governor? If he took the partisan route, would the Republicans be seen in a darker light and suffer later on, or would no-one care? What is the Constitutional justification for this power?

Actually, governors are meant to be relatively powerful, since we are a union of states. Each state -- ideally -- should be a petri dish where ideas and laws can be tried out before they get foisted on the larger society. It doesn't always work, but that's the idea.

This case is interesting because the power of the state is directly intersecting with the structure of the federal government. But the article you read is correct -- a governor may appoint the successor to a disabled Senator. That's how the cookie crumbles. It's just a freak accident that this one appointment could swing the entire balance of a house of congress.

The whole thing may be moot, however, since it looks as though the Senator will recover, and nobody is urging that he be struck from the rolls if he doesn't get better on a particular timetable.

[edit]

As to the "undemocratic" point, just remember, our founders were much more interested in the balancing of powers than in strict democracy. There are all sorts of safeguards to ensure we don't slide into a tyranny of the majority. Chalk this rule up as another one of those funny tripwires our founders planted in the constitution.

[drone]

This happened in 2000 in Georgia, with Zell Miller(D, at the time), being appointed by Gov. Roy Barnes(D) to replace Senator Paul Coverdell(R) when he died in office.

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 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.

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.

The executive authority of the state is the governor. If I'm not mistaken, the replacement then runs in a special election at the next Senatorial election cycle, so 2 years of unelected power at most.

[BigTex]

I'm fascinated by this article and the possibilities it conjures - I would appreciate some US orgah's viewpoints.

In essence, a Democrat Senator, Tim Johnson of South Dakota has fallen very seriously ill. It appears that should Snr Johnson have to resign his post, the Republican governor of South Dakota would be able to appoint his replacement from whichever party he felt appropriate. If he chose a fellow Republican, this would bring the incoming Senate to 50-50, meaning that Vice President Cheney would have the casting vote. In effect, the Republicans would re-gain control of the Senate.

Now, I can understand the reasons for not having a new election (though a by-election would seem most appropriate) but it seems to me to be quite astonishing that a governor could even consider over-turning the will of the people, let alone have the power to do so.

Perhaps the article is misinformed. If not, how can it be ethical, let alone democratic, to allow this kind of power to a governor? If he took the partisan route, would the Republicans be seen in a darker light and suffer later on, or would no-one care? What is the Constitutional justification for this power?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I certainly hope that this turns into a merely academic exercise and that Senator Johnson fully recovers and takes up his seat.

Even with a 50/50 senate there would never be 50-50 votes requiring the vice president to cast the deciding vote. Moderates on both sides don't always vote with the party.

As for the governor appointing a representative. It's quite fair, granted in this case it's a little bit of a bigger thing. The executive elected official of that state is appointing someone to ensure that his states voice in the senate is still properly heard. Without appointing another member South Dakota only has 1 member representing the entire populace of that state in the senate. Quite unfair for South Dakota when everyone else has 2 senator's each. Granted the appointment wouldn't be perminent, they would be there until they had a special election.

[lars573]

Perhaps the article is misinformed. If not, how can it be ethical, let alone democratic, to allow this kind of power to a governor? If he took the partisan route, would the Republicans be seen in a darker light and suffer later on, or would no-one care? What is the Constitutional justification for this power?

I think you'll find that the British House of Lords and it's Canadian equivalent (our Senate) take the cake on lack of democracy and ethics.

[Sir Moody]

actually if an MP dies there is a By-Election so this is one point we are more democratic - generally tho you are right tho

[lars573]

We do that as well. But currently we have 306 of 308 commons seats filled. 2 are in need of bi-elections.

Yep. It's how they were intended. Sir John A. MacDonald described our senate as a place of "sober second thought" to curb "democratic excesses" of the commons, and give regional representation.

Except these days the regional representation is out of whack. My homeland of New Scotland has for less than 1 million people yet rates 10 senators. While Goofball's British Columbia has 6 senators for 4 million persons. Mean while Beirut's Quebec (along with Ontario) has 24 senators.

[Xiahou]

It's not likely to happen. As long as the guy still draws breath, he's going to keep his seat... whether or not he'll be physically in the Senate casting votes may be another matter.

[doc_bean]

IMO the US system *hates* reelections. This is probably due to historical reasons, but that's just the way the system works. Unless all 20 or so people in line for the presidency die they'll never have another presidential election before the standard term ends. Even if the lowest Secretary suddenly becomes president (and then there are Speakers and whatnot next in line I think).

On a side note, I heard the oldest senator ever, who retired last term (iirc) couldn't even stay awake during a sitting, so his assistants just raised his hand...