I hope you'll excuse the hubristic headline. Constitutional amendments are introduced all the time in the Congress. Most of them are used to make a political point of one kind or another and stand little chance of becoming law.
On account of the trouble that certain Democratic governors had with making their senatorial appointments this year, however, a new amendment to be introduced by Wisconsin's Russ Feingold may prove to be an exception:Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, issued the following statement today on plans to introduce an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to end appointments to the Senate by state governors and require special elections in the event of a Senate seat vacancy.
We've been on this bandwagon for some time. Appointed senators rarely win re-election -- perhaps because governors tend to do a poor job of choosing them, often choosing family members or cronies in lieu of people with superior qualifications, or using the appointment to advance their own well-being rather than that of their states or their parties. Vacancies in the House have long been chosen by special election; it's odd that vacancies in the Senate have not been.
“The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end. In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people. I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute. As the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I will hold a hearing on this important topic soon.”
Constitutional amendments require passage by two-thirds of each chamber of Congress and then subsequently by majorities of three-quarters of state legislatures. This means, naturally, that they need to be seen as advancing sufficiently nonzerosum objectives (e.g. Good Government) that do not clearly advantage one party over another. Does this one qualify? I think probably so -- but first a bit of context on how replacement senators are selected.
The four states that required replacement senators to be appointed this year -- these are Colorado, Delaware, Illinois and New York -- all did so by means of gubernatorial appointment as provided for under the 17th Amendment. The 17th Amendment, however, while providing for gubernatorial appointments, does not require them, and a number of states take a different approach. Twelve states call for "fast" special elections in the event of senatorial vacancies: these are Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. From among these states, eight allow interim gubernatorial appointments. Oregon, Wisconsin, Massachusetts and Oklahoma are the exceptions -- the seat simply remains vacant in these states until the special election is held -- although Oklahoma provides for gubernatorial appointments if the vacancy occurs after March 1st of an even-numbered year.
All of these states have a cut-off date beyond which point the special election is delayed to be held in conjunction with the next regular general election (as it is in other states without "fast" special elections laws). To take one practical example of how this works, we can look at Texas, where Kay Bailey Hutchinson is considering resigning her seat to run for governor. If she does so at some point in 2009, a "fast" special election will be held. If she waits until January 1st, however, the election will be delayed to coincide with the next midterms in 2010.
Cut-Off Points for Fast Special Elections
Arkansas: 12 Months from General Election
Mississippi: January 1st of Election Year
Texas: January 1st of Election Year
Oklahoma: March 1st of Election Year
Massachusetts: April 10th of Election Year
Vermont: 6 Months from General Election
Washington: 6 Months from General Election
Wisconsin: 2nd Tuesday in May of Election Year
Alaska: 60 Days from Primary Election (this probably translates to late June)
Alabama: 4 Months from General Election
Oregon: 61 Days from General Election
Louisiana: Your Guess is as Good As Mine
Beside these twelve states, two others (California and New Jersey) appear to provide for the option of a fast special election as determined by the governor -- although frankly I can't imagine these governors exercising their options unless under extreme political pressure.
The other form of restriction that some states place on gubernatorial appointments is that employed by Arizona, Hawaii, Utah and Wyoming. These states have some mechnaism for requiring that the appointed senator be from the same party as the departed one.
Now, then -- excepting the minority of states that either require special elections or fix the party of the appointed senator -- does either party stand to gain ground if the provision for gubernatorial appointment is removed?
Based on the present configuration of senators and governors, not really. There are now 14 Republican senators that could and presumably would be replaced by Democratic governors if they deceased or decided to resign from the Senate. The Republicans will be in a better position to hold these seats if the Feingold amendment is passed. These senators are: Grassley (IA), Brownback (KS), Roberts (KS), Bunning (KY), McConnell (KY), Collins (ME), Snowe (ME), Bond (MO), Burr (NC), Gregg (NH), Voinovich (OH), Specter (PA), Alexander (TN), and Corker (TN).
Likewise, there are 14 Democratic senators who would presumably be replaced by Republicans. The Democrats will be in a better position to hold these seats if the Feingold amendment is passed. These are Senators Boxer (CA), Feinstein (CA), Dodd (CT), Nelson (FL), Bayh (IN), Franken (MN), Klobuchar (MN), Conrad (ND), Dorgan (ND), Nelson (NE), Reid (NV), Reed (RI), Whitehouse (RI), Johnson (SD). (Joe Liberman (CT) would make 15, if you consider him to be a Democrat.)
So this happens to be a pretty good time to introduce this amendment -- in the near term, it is not as though one party stands to gain or lose seats if it is enacted. Nor do I see an obvious arguments why one or another party stands to gain in the longer term, although I'm sure one can be constructed.
Are their other, ostensibly nonpartisan arguments against Feingold's amendment? I suppose it will be objected that holding additional elections is expensive; Illinois officials estimated, for example, that the cost of appointing a special election to replace Barack Obama would be $31 million. But I don't see how this argument is persuasive; $31 million translates into about the cost of buying a Big Mac for every Illinoisan, hardly a prohibative price for better government. Besdies which, if the cost were such a problem, why hold special elections for the House -- or for that matter, any office at all?
So it seems to me that there is ample motive to enact this amendment: the disaster surrounding the appointment in Illinois and the melodrama over the one in New York. With neither party standing to be advantaged by it, there may also be ample means. And Feingold's bill provides for the opportunity.
1.25.2009
Feingold Introduces 28th Amendment
@ 8:43 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
132 comments
I just read about this over at Political Wire.
good move, Russ !
we need more senators like him - not fewer ones like _______
but rather than have the seats sit vacant for months, I would still favor temp appointments by the states with the governor choosing from a pre-screened list of candidates from the same party produced by the state legislature
This amendment is a terrible idea. What happens if the Congress is decapitated in a terrorist or conventional strike? We already have the problem of filling the House back up with Congresspeople if such an event happens. Now we would have neither house of Congress with members surviving, and we would be forced to either break/make up the law or allow the military or the executive branch (whoever remains after the attack, such as the "designated survivor") make all decisions. If anything, the appointment process should only be temporary but it should be instant and for House as well as Senate members, so that if such a disaster occurs we can quickly put the government back together.
also like the colors in your graphics, Nate.
for me that shade of blue really jumps out for the 2 'option' states
although our color blind friends might have some trouble discerning the different blue/green - in which case cross-hatching could be used instead for the blue 'option' but would not work as well for the smaller states...
I like getting away from the reds
I'd like to see a temp appointment and then an election. Perhaps the outgoing senator could appoint their replacement, provided that they are (i) retiring or (ii) taking another government position.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/25/142649/219/703/688841
Last year Mississippi's Governor Barbour played with the timing for Trent Lott's replacement and gave time for his short-term appointee to achieve statewide recognition. As I remember it, that January first cut-off date did not in fact get exercised.
IMHO, the disadvantage of the Feingold amendment proposal is that it creates a single uniform and national standard for all states, rather than handling different demographics and sizes differently.
And although the gubernatorial appointments in the past two years have not been shining examples, the quality of special-election Senators has not been much better.
Massachusetts special election is a new thing. The State Legislature which is Democratic controlled passed that law when John Kerry was running for President. At that time if Kerry won, then the Governor would have appointed his replacement. Given that the Governor was Mitt Romney he would likely have appointed a Republican as Senator from Massachusetts. So the Legislature changed the process to deny Romney that option. Massachusetts' special election law is not about high principles, but about base politics. There's no guarantee that Massachusetts would ratify such an ammendment.
I hope this passes into law. I find the idea of a gubernatorial appointment for the Senate or the House to be undemocratic in the extreme.
This is the United States. We're supposed to choose our own leaders, not have those decisions made for us.
Besides, there's a certain legitimacy that only comes from an election. People are already looking at the recent spate of appointees as placeholders at best.
Teratoma, If Congress is severely hurt by a terrorist or conventional strike, we are going to have bigger issues than replacing legislators.
In the real world that all of us live in...
This is a great idea for an amendment, and one that I hope goes through. It puts the power of senatorial selection fully in the hands of the public, regardless of circumstance.. which is how it is supposed to be.
Alas, another blow against my very very small "Repeal the Seventeenth" movement.
Realistically, this is unlikely to pass as an amendment, nor is it clear that it should since any state can implement the same thing on its own if it wants. The case for why this should be forced on unwilling states is thin.
That said, the mere raising of the issue is likely to kick some states that have only left their old system in place out of inertia. So even if the amendment doesn't pass, it may do nearly as much good in failing.
"Besdies which, if the cost were such a problem, why hold special elections for the House -- or for that matter, any office at all?"
A House special election is only in one district, so it'll usually be cheaper and sometimes a lot cheaper than a statewide Senatorial election.
I've always figured the state legislature you select a member as Senator, and then have an election at the next statewide, usually within two years. You have to figure that the recently elected upon state legislature would be representative of the state's populous.
Vacancies in the House have long been chosen by special election; it's odd that vacancies in the Senate have not been.
Since Senators are considered representatives of their states as a whole, it does seem to make a peculiar sort of sense to have vacancies filled by officers of the state, especially when you remember that senators were originally elected by each state's legislative body (rather than through popular elections).
However, this 28th Amendment would certainly finish the work begun by the 17th to place power back in the hands of the public.
I wish Russ would piggy-back it with a move to dump the Electoral College
THAT argument is even easier to show how deeply flawed it has been in the past, present & will continue to be in the future because it is not guaranteed to be reasonably representative of the will of the people
of course there are also ways for the states to take matters into their own hands - at least as far as how the congressional district vote is apportioned ala NE & ME
funny, but dumping the EC should be a cause for Joe Lieberman to push...
To further Jim Gonyea's point
I have posted previously TWO Boston Globes articles.
The first showed, in 2004, when Senator Kerry was running for President, that the legislature of Massachusetts (completely controlled by democratts) wanted to avoid the specter of then Governor Romney to select ANY interim senator.
The second showed, in 2008, when Senator Kerry was thought to be a candidate for Secretary of State, that the legislature was considering given the power BACK to Governor Patrick. The governor was more likely to listen to the state democratic party.
Senator Kerry got his seat through a normal election. Senator Ted Kennedy, however, won his brother John's seat in 1962, two years after JFK was elected president. The new democratic governor appointed a family friend as caretaker for the seat, bypassing the NEED to have legislation change.
Having lived in Massachusetts for many years (and in New England for most of my life), do not think that the CURRENT position of the Commonwealth has anything to do with MORALS. It has everything to do with the democratic party MAINTAINING control of the Senate seats and seats in the House of Representatives. In fact, the governor's office is not highly contested, since the state legislature wears the pants.
Continuity of government is not just for conspiracy theorists anymore. In fact, there are many executive orders and back-up plans already existing. Some of them are listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan
and the "designated survivor" policy is the best-known of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designated_survivor
The risk may be small, but the issue is not trivial. It is very much a real-world concern, and real-world policymakers create contingency plans to deal with these situations. Many of them view the special elections required for House members as a bad thing without some sort of temporary appointment back-up plan in case of emergency.
For the policy junkies, here's a link to a law review article about this very issue:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=952790
Fly,
If you think democracy is too expensive...
have a look at what happens when you suspend it.
The freedom of the American people to elect their own representatives in government must never be compromised, and the price tag is no excuse. This is no empire, monarchy, or dictatorship. Our common bond is not linguistic, racial, ethnic, or religious. It is an idea; the idea of a representative democratic republic for whom the ultimate arbiter is the citizenry itself.
As such it is only fitting that we encourage direct participation int he most fundamental way-voting-at every opportunity we can. By doing so we tie our government to the popular will, with every election a stitch in the fabric of our democracy. Accountability improves, and the governor of a state cannot impose his will at the federal level when the people of his state has sentiments opposite his own.
Every election is worth every penny. The suspension of democracy is never worth it, no matter what temporary gain you may receive in time or money. In the long run, we must have representatives that do our will, and the only way to ensure that is through elections.
If I had my will, we would have elections every day, and I would wave the ballot int he air like a flag. For those who panic at the desecration of the flag do so at the destruction of a symbol. The ballot is the real banner to which we should rally, and it's desecration is far more of an offense to our nation than any burning rectangle of cloth.
A non-partisan argument against the amendment:
It provides an artificial disincentive for a president (like Obama) to choose among senators for his cabinet (like Clinton and Salazar). If the amendment were in place now, then by appointing Clinton and Salazar he would lose two democratic votes during his first 100 days (or however long a special election takes). Not to mention the two votes he would have already lost in Illinois and in Delaware.
If the most qualified person for the job happens to be currently holding a Senate seat, then she might be passed over because of the fear of temporarily losing a vote in the Senate.
Mike,
Faced with two choices: suspend democracy for the convenience of the President or adhere to it even when it brings him consternation, I will hew to the second option every time.
I do not care how inconvenient democracy is to you. It is still the law of the land.
Mike--But this would increase the incentive for a President to pick a Senator from a state where the governor is from the other party, which right now is strongly disincentivized. There's a very artificial distinction right now based on which party the governor belongs to that would be done away with by this amendment.
DCM, unfortunately, the only way to pass a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Electoral College would be to have a new constitutional convention, and we must remember that the last time there was one, it was held to discuss improvements to the Articles of Confederation and instead chose to junk them - constitutional conventions can take ANY action and are therefore a mortal danger to the Republic, to be avoided at almost any cost. Senator Feingold is certainly well-advised to avoid any discussion of the Electoral College in his amendment.
Teratoma, if you have some language you could propose to deal with a disaster that kills off all U.S. senators suddenly, send it to Senator Feingold in an email, and also please post it here. But don't tell us that the unlikely case of such a disaster invalidates the idea of requiring special elections, any more than the fact of a country being torn by civil war didn't make it valid to postpone Lincoln's reelection campaign.
Mike, I think your argument is unimportant. Popular elections are so much more important than the question of what the temporary loss of a senatorial vote may cause a president to think about. But yeah, that IS a non-partisan argument.
Michael,
Not to mention it's a very low probability that there will be another Constitutional Convention.
Now, I am not a law student, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong on what I am about to say here. In the seventies, the DC Voting Rights Amendment passed int he Congress but failed ratification by the states. DC's lack of Congressional representation, like the Electoral College, is written into the Constitution itself, the body of the document, not merely another Amendment.
As such, if my logic holds true here, if you can Amend the C to override the lack of representation of DC in the Congress, why could you not do so for replacing the EC? The same legal theory that allows for one should allow for the other.
Further, I thought that the Amendments in principle were there to amend the Constitution-not merely to tack things on to it, but to change it fundamentally if that's what needed to happen. I have always thought the word amend meant to repair. Where the Constitution is broken, Amendments to it serve to heal it.
When the EC was first created, it was probably largely because of how difficult it would be to hold popular elections. The first elections of the President were done only by congressmen and senators-the citizen could not cast votes for that election. Maybe this was because Congress, already being in DC, was a centralized location and there were very few Congressmen and Senators at the time, so tallies and recounts would not be difficult.
If I am not mistaken, Senators weren't elected back then, either.
But we no longer live in the days of the horse drawn carriage. We do popular voting for President and the Senate, only the latter counts and the former is just a strong suggestion the EC is more likely than not to follow.
It's not impractical to do direct election of our Presidents anymore.
And, if it is possible to Amend the C the way we did with the DC Voting Rights Amendment back in the 70's, we should ditch the EC for good, in favor od direct election of the President.
Feingold's plan is likely to reflect the Oregon 1996 when Bob Packwood resigned . The special election to replace Packwood took place in January 1996 3 months after his resignation.
Louisiana's timeline for the special election is essentially 11 weeks with 4 quarterly cut-offs.
"If I had my will, we would have elections every day, and I would wave the ballot int he air like a flag. For those who panic at the desecration of the flag do so at the destruction of a symbol. The ballot is the real banner to which we should rally, and it's desecration is far more of an offense to our nation than any burning rectangle of cloth."
Statler, that was beautiful.
In principle it would make sense to get rid of the EC. In practice, it would be a bad idea because of fraud problems. A single state under the control of one party (UT?) could swing a close election by enormous fraud. Right now, there's a tendency for the key swing states to have enough politicians from each big party to inhibit fraud a bit, and the effects are limited to the state's EVs anyway. (Not to deny that OH in 2004 was a huge problem.)
So eliminating the EC should only be considered after major improvements in the voting and counting process.
If anyone has any complaints about the costs of democracy, they can feel free to move to Saudi Arabia or North Korea.
@Teratoma,
What if the same strike took out the respective Governor(s)? The risk might be small, but the issue is not trivial.
Just sayin'.
The governators ain't sacred cows. But populace is. We can always put in (semi)automatic triggers for elections, should the government be "decapitated", and there is no one left to herd the sheep.
Methinks them sheep are no less capable than the governors, and it's worth the wait, as Blago and Paterson have shown us.
~ Latte
Statler, you misunderstood my remark. Sure, it's theoretically possible to amend the Constitution to do away with the Electoral College without having a constitutional convention. Indeed, I strongly favor a direct popular vote for President. My point is that, politically, such an amendment will never pass, because more than 1/4 of states are disproportionately represented in the Electoral College. I would still like for someone to propose such an amendment, but not part of something else that's meritorious and has a chance to pass.
Two comments: First, the difference between special elections for the House and special elections for the Senate is that Senate elections are statewide and House elections are not (except for a few states). That means Senate special elections are inherently more expensive than House special elections. Second, an easier approach, which I don't think would need a Constitutional amendment, is for states to require the "advice and consent" of the state legislature for a gubernatorial appointment of a replacement Senator, just as presidential appointments require congressional approval (usually just senatorial). I think this would reasonably protect the people's interests at much less cost than a special election. That all said, I actually do support Sen. Feingold's proposed amendment.
Republicans, like Cornyn, were screaming for a special election in IL. Even though they purpotedly based their stance on the will of the people, skeptics like me believe they just wanted a chance for another R senator. I'll be interested in the position of every R who demanded a special election in IL so we can see which ones meant it and which ones are hypocrits.
Okay...Louisiana is messed up, but is there really a senatoral special election timeframe. Subsection E of RS18:402 essentially precludes the senate election as it states "Special elections to fill newly created office or vacancy in office....except the office of state legislator or rep in congress. In fact, even in subsection B and further in B's subsection 3, the language for election of a senator is not included...it very specifically states "every 2 years" as if refering only to the representative side. Am I reading any of this wrong? I don't believe there is a fast special election for senators in this state...
Intemperate webfuckers, can't you confine yourselves to just have one blog comment a day like I do?
Well, you only need 66.6% of the states to ratify an Amendment for it to become law; 66+25=91%. You've got 9% of the states (4.5 states total) worth of wiggle room.
So, even if 1/4 of the states vote against it, it is still mathematically possible for it to pass, provided you can get 33 state legislatures to give a shit about it. The ones whose states are underrepresented are probably likely to go for it, and the rest can possibly be brought on board if there's a strong enough grassroots movement among the electorate putting pressure on their state reps.
That is one tasty shade of blue that Silver guy's usng today. Kudos.
California's painted blue cos it's by the sea right?
Why not eliminate having Senators owned by special-interests by repealing the 17th amendment? Let's return to having the Senators selected by the states' assemblies rather than having these multi-million dollar races by professional politicians.
Ah those lush green texan pampas!
Hey Nate, it's Hutchison (no "n"), not Hutchinson. :)
Mr. Willis of Ohio
Statler, you're wrong. 3/4 of the state legislatures must approve any constitutional amendment. This is from Article V of the Constitution:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress
Quidam, you must be joking, but it's not funny. You might as well propose to abolish elections altogether.
amendment is a terrible idea
waste of time and money
and it will not pass
Thanks, Juvanya :)
hey while we're at it, let's write this into the same Amendment that would ditch the EC and gubernatorial appointments:
From now on, we shall have confidence votes in the state legislatures; should any sitting President fail a simple majority confidence vote, that government shall fall, Congress shall adjourn, and a new election for the Congress and the President shall occur.
With such a thing, the Iraq War would have ended by now, because Bush would have fallen in 2005 and the Congress would have become populated with anti-war Congressmen
Michael,
Oops! My bad :)
Well, in that case, ti's alot tighter, but still a mathematical possibility. Damned unlikely, but possible!
Michael,
Not joking. The Constitution specified that the Senators should be elected by the state legislatures. I believe that is a much better idea than having multi-million dollar campaigns that can only be afforded by wealthy candidates (or those supported by millionaires). You disagree -- OK, everyone has different opinions.
End elections altogether?? My web site argues for having many more representatives in the U.S. House. We should replace 435 oligarchs with 6,000 citizen politicians. I prefer a representative democracy to a oligarchy. So you can see that I want thousands more elections of representatives, but 100 less elections of special-interest-owned Senators.
Jeff Quidam (Thirty-Thousand.org)
Eve, why do you think it won't pass? Some bullshit "states' rights" argument? Federal elections should be standardized by the Federal government. States can set rules for state elections, within the limits of the Constitution (e.g., no poll tax), but there should be no inconsistency in voting rights and procedures for Federal positions.
Nate: "Appointed senators rarely win re-election"
And so I ask, exactly what problem are we trying to solve by amending the constitution? I care about this as much as I cared about keeping Burris out of the Senate: not at all. If Paterson made a bad pick or looks incompetent and loses the upcoming election, the system will have worked. As it will have if he made a great pick.
Jeff, the Constitution also counted slaves as 3/5 of a person. I also believe the House should be enlarged (though probably not to 6,000), but taking away the people's right to vote for their senators is regressive, anti-democratic, and wrong. And if you think that the expense of Senatorial campaigns makes them beholden to special interests, what do you propose to do about presidential elections? By the way, I have a simpler suggestion for what to do about the Senate: Abolish it, and have a unicameral Legislature, based solely on population, i.e., the House. But it'll never happen, barring a constitutional convention.
Realistically, this is unlikely to pass as an amendment, nor is it clear that it should since any state can implement the same thing on its own if it wants. The case for why this should be forced on unwilling states is thin.
There is an element of gaming the system as it is. Politicians in states with R governors may be against special elections in their state because of the chance that the people might elect a D, even though they would be OK with a special election if everyone followed the same rule (and vice versa of course). for example, I didn't want IL to have a special election because the Ds might lose a seat that they would have via gubernatorial appointment. But, if everyone is operating under the same rules, then I'm all for special elections. It's like the electoral coll ege--it might make more sense divide up EC votes proportionately or by congressional district, but as long as no one else is doing it, the state that does do it is diluting the power of its majority.
Mr Quindam,
I find myself in the peculiar position of agreeing and disagreeing with you simultaneously.
I agree there should be more voices in the House. I still say it should be determined by the population of a given state, but safeguards against gerrymandering should be imposed; perhaps the shape of a given district should not be so irregular as to allow the lines to demarcate between Democrat and Republican neighborhoods. I don't know what method would be best, but something has to be done to block gerrymandering.
I disagree profoundly with the idea of reverting to the system prior to the 17th Amendment. It is easier to corrupt a handful of people than the majority of a state; fewer bribes need be made, less advertising is required. How much easier was the brief campaign of Caroline Kennedy than an election bid would have been for her? She only had to get one vote instead of a mass of votes, which is why she remained viable for as long as she did. In an election, she would not have lasted one week, despite her money and family name.
It would in fact be easier for Senate candidates to sell out under the old system than the current one. Cheaper for the corporations, too. Instead of paying billions for air time, they just have to buy dinner at a nice restaurant for a few state reps. There's no need for debates, no interviews on TV or YouTube.
Constituent services would also suffer. Senators would no longer be accountable to their constituents, so there's no need to help them. The same bribe to s state reps re-election fund would also buy you Senate votes, so corruption becomes even easier.
Michael,
When you bring up the "slaves" argument (especially when the word "slaves" is not in the Constitution), you sound like someone you doesn't want to have a rational discussion. The 4/5 factor in the Constution was to allocate *both* representation and taxes to the states. The anti-slavery states did not want the slave states to have the proportion of representation they would due to the population of slaves, but they also did *not* want the slave states to avoid their fair allocation of the federal budget. 4/5 was the compromise that allowed a single country to be formed, rather than two nations, which is what would have happened otherwise.
So let's stay on point, OK?
If you want to have a unicameral Congress and, as you say, that will never happen, then the next best thing is to have a 6,000-member House that will overwhelm the Senate. What we have now is two Senates (instead of a House and as Senate). The two Senates are run by the wealthy and powerful for the wealthy and powerful. I'm not a big defender of the staus quo. If you are, then I respect that. But I want to replace 435 wealthy oligarchs with 6,000 citizen representatives.
Maybe just a difference of opinion. I respect your view.
The Electoral College stays as long as governance continues under the current Constitution. Right now the eleven states with the lagest populations as of 2000 account for 271 electors. The remaining 39 states account for 264 electors. The workaround that would work is for a group of states accounting for 270 or more electors to enact legislation requiring that the state's electoral votes be cast for the popular vote winner provided the same legislation is in force in a sufficient number of states to assure that the popular vote winner will be elected.
It'll be interesting to see if this amendment gets a hearing before the full Senate Judiciary Committee during the next couple of years. I wouldn't bet on it.
Last I checked the only qualifications for Senator are:
1. US Citizen.
2. Over 30 years of age.
Nothing about "superior qualifications", as if even 5% of the Senate has an IQ over 100, much less any other "qualification" a voter might be looking for.
But I agree that something needs to be done, but I am not sure such a drastic remedy is needed. I have other ideas such appointments last 6 months, or if a state allows the governor to make the appointment, it must be confirmed by the state legislature.
Or how about not allowing Senators to move directly into cabinet positions. As if Hillary is qualified for SoS.
First, I used to live in Wisconsin, and Russ Feingold remains my political hero. If he's proposing it, it's because he believes it would be good for small-d democracy.
Second, tying this to Electoral College reform would kill it. As much as I'd like to see the President elected by popular vote, that ain't gunna happen by Constitutional amendment in the foreseeable future.
Third, Statler raised some questions about what can be handled by amendment, and what would require a constitutional convention. In my opinion, both the appointment/election of vacancy Senators and the direct/EC determination of the president would be subject to a "simple" amendment. They're details of the mechanism of government. But this very much brought to mind California's Prop H8 case. Where those of us who believe that all people should be treated equally under the law are hoping that the state supreme court declares that "equal treatment" is too fundamental an issue to be amended away by a mere popular vote. But from a legalistic point of view, it's ugly. What does it mean to "amend the Constitution" if it's subject to judicial review? I just wish a majority of Californians had voted to affirm equal rights for the minority in the first place, and saved us the headache....
I think the real non-partisan justification behind the appointment replacement process provided by the 17th is one of speed. The difference between a House seat and a Senate seat isn't so much the nature of the region being represented as it is what sort of power that vote provides.
A House member is just one voice among 435 in a majority rules body. But a Senator is one of only a hundred in a body where just one vote can make a huge difference.
When a state goes without Senate representation, they lose significant leverage in the ongoing battle for federal distribution of wealth. Consider the farm states who rely on their senators to ensure the Farm Bill continues to be a major boon for farmers. Those states can't afford to be underrepresented during those negotiations. There are plenty of other examples where states would be just foolish to give up the vote for the three to six months it takes to run a proper state-wide special election.
As long as states have a use for the anonymous hold and the filibuster, those same states will oppose any measure that could put them in a position where they can't exercise those powers.
"This is the United States. We're supposed to choose our own leaders, not have those decisions made for us."
Are you aware that the ability of citizens to elect their Senators has not even exist for 100 years?
By the original intent of the framers, you don't elect your Senators.
What I'd like to see is Nate's analysis of the appointment of Michael Bennet in Colorado. It pretty much flew under the radar with all the flap in IL and NY, but it's an unexpected and very interesting pick.
The only way gerrymandering will ever be stopped is if a process of "algorithmic redistricting" is accepted, with a clearly-specified algorithm that only takes as input past districts and the block-by-block population count from the census, and nothing else.
The design of such an algorithm is very much within the realm of possibility, and would guarantee fairness.
But, of course, since it hurts the power of the politicians who currently gain from gerrymandering, and requires a level of education in a relevant field to really understand, it'll never happen.
If the maximum district size were 50,000 (as proposed by Thirty-Thousand.org), the possibility for gerrymandering is greatly reduced. Maybe you can force the odd house down on the corner (the one painted green) into the next district of 50,000, but even then they will be just as well represented.
"Quidam, you must be joking, but it's not funny. You might as well propose to abolish elections altogether"
Then I suppose that means there were no elections prior to the 17th amendment? Ratified in 1913.
Statler N Waldorf,
I'll let you guys go on without me. I got to go to bed to go to work in the morning.
Last comment: my view of constituent services is that they should be provided by our Represenatives, NOT by our Senators. I want the representatives to serve the constituency and protect us from the federal government. Who gets "constituent services" from Senators other than the wealthy and powerful?? Maybe you do, but I don't. The Senators have constituencies that can number in the millions of people. We need to be *represented* by our Representatives. Instead we have two Senates, and we (the people) are representated by neither.
Please read the 15 Questions & Answers on Thirty-Thousand.org's home page.
Thirty-Thousand.org is a non-partisan and non-profit 501(c)(3) organization.
lilnev,
To compare changing from the EC to direct vote to Proposition * is equivocation. One is procedural and promotes democracy, the other restricts civil rights. This would be like my saying,
"We should not have universal healthcare, because the Fugitive Slave Act was universal in scope, and therefore universal healthcare is like the fugitive slave act"
That,s total bullshit, they have nothing to do with one another. Neither does Prop 8 have anything to do with the EC or it's removal.
JEQ,
This is true for metro areas, but in a rural area, it would be still possible to gerrymander, since 50K people could be spread out over a large area. It certainly does make it more difficult, but not impossible, so it is an improvement in any case. I think something has to be done to determine the shape of the borders one uses when redistricting, if that were possible somehow. I have no idea how to make it work, but something should be done.
JEQ, on your last comment, it is not true that only wealthy people receive constituent services from their Senators. I would challenge you to prove otherwise.
Why do some people think that the original intent of the Framers is sacrosanct? We fought a Civil War in order to force an end to slavery - and yes, it isn't mentioned by name in the Constitution, but that's irrelevant. Neither did the Framers give women the right to vote; that had to be fought for. I can't see a single thing that would be better for the people if the 17th Amendment were abolished instead of extended, as Russ Feingold proposes.
Quidam, why would increasing the number of Representatives cause the House to overwhelm the Senate, if the Senate's power remained as is under the Constitution? Makes no sense.
wv: andante. How appropriate, considering that I've been listening to classical music on the radio all day.
David:
By the original intent of the framers, you don't elect your Senators.
By the original intent of the framers, we can amend the Constitution. They were men, not gods, and recognized that the Constitution should evolve as the country changed.
If you have an argument for why Senators would be better appointed by state legislatures, make it. Saying "that's the way the Constitution was originally written" isn't one.
Well, one "ostensibly nonpartisan" argument against the amendment is that the states have determined their own laws on this issue for almost a century with only one notable instance of overt fraud. The Senate's ethics record on just about any issue is far worse than the 1 incident in 97 years the states have on this one.
"It's always been done that way" doesn't strike me as a good argument.
It is when federalism is a key part of America's Constitutional tradition. Traditionally, the only reason to remove/restrain state power on an issue is if the states have shown some inability to deal with that issue. On this issue, we can't point to many examples of states not being able to properly handle their own rules on Senate vacancies. Not every issue is a federal issue.
Michael,
I could never agree with you more, on both counts.
My support for JEQ's suggestion is based only in that it would inhibit gerrymandering. But in no way could increasing the number of Reps undermine the Senate.
May I say also that your argument that we should not remain slaves (pun intended) to the intentions of the framers is eloquent and well-founded.
It seems so odd to me that people instinctively assume that anything old is superior to anything new. Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that a certain degree of charm exists in reading old fairytales or playing traditional music. I draw the line at rendering something sacrosanct on the sole basis of age. Should we not critically assess our traditions periodically, lest we become ideological packrats incapable of letting go of the past? And for discarded traditions, why must we ponder their re-adoption? The Articles of Confederation are old too, but I don't see these supporters of 17th Amendment repeal demanding a return to the Articles in rejection of the Constitution. Perhaps this is because of the relative obscurity of the original System of American Government; I wonder if many Americans are aware there was another government prior to the Big C.
Given the human tendency to romanticize the past, perhaps its better that way. I'll shut up before the board becomes populated with demands that we restore the right of each state to mint it's own currency and raise armies to go to war with one another once again. I believe at one point New Jersey tried to invade New York. Perhaps instinctively, they are still invading New York, only now it's the Bridge and Tunnel Crowd rather than militias.
Fantastic and funny post, Statler!
Center Wing, the great fallacy in your argument is, in order for Russ Feingold's amendment to pass, the states have to approve it, whereupon, they will have dealt with the issue. So I still don't think your argument is very substantive. It's not like there's some way the states' will can be steamrolled under the normal amendment process (i.e., being introduced in the Federal legislature and approved by the state legislatures).
It seems funny to me that a US Senator is using one high profile incident of state-level corruption as an excuse to change America's most sacred document, but had none to offer on the dozens of major ethics issues that occurred in his branch of government over the last several years. If we start amending the Constitution anytime some politician wants to demagogue on a high-profile issue, we better get ready to implement a few thousand amendments by the end of Obama's first term. The Constitution isn't the charter of some college fraternity to be changed at will. It's not an issue of "anything old is superior to anything new." It's an issue of not changing our nation's most sacred document as a means of capturing a media cycle, which is the only reason this amendment is being introduced.
TCW
The Civil War was a single high profile incident, and we got two Amendments out of that one.
Number of people killed in the Civil War: 620,000 soldiers + an unknown number of civilians
Number of people killed in Blago scandal: 0
Let's not pretend there is any equivalency the a Gubernatorial scandal and a series of battles that threatened to rip the nation apart.
What's sacred about the current wording of the Constitution? And isn't the built-in process of amendment, which is difficult but by no means impossible, part of that sacredness? Yeah, it IS something to change at will - the will of 2/3 of both Houses of Congress and a simple majority of 3/4 of state legislatures. I assume you consider that fact sacred.
The argument that something else wasn't done is not a good argument against this amendment, either.
TCW,
Have you noticed that your initials and The Civil War (TCW) are identical?
We do not yet know how many people have died as a result of that ridiculous haircut Blago sports. I for one demand a full investigation before we determine which killed more people. Call Fox News and tell them to run stories about Blago's hair nonstop until we find out for sure if that hair killed anybody or not.
It looks like a dead animal. It could very well BE a dead animal. I am not saying there's anything illegal or immoral going on here, I'm just SAYING. And I think we need an investigation.
Statler, no investigation: It would cost too much. :-P
Michael said...
"What's sacred about the current wording of the Constitution?"
well, apparently Chief Justice Roberts doesn't have much regard for the sanctity of the exact wording
OUCH, Barack - quit poking me in the ribs...I was just joshing so don't give me the stink eye like you gave ol' Joey
anyway, people seem to latch onto specific portions of exact wording from 'sacred' text like the the Constitution & Bible when it suits their personal agenda - then selectively ignore the parts that are not so convenient...
imho all documents should be considered in proper context & space/time parameters as dynamic & perhaps even living/organic material to work with rather than fixed & static infallible dead scrolls of literal & absolute truth
WV - gynyin [Bushie said it best when he proclaimed the very elemental YIN of Too many ob-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."
geez I miss Jr already - at least on the late night comedy shows... Obama is not just mangled quote worthy...
This is not needed. To have a situation like Illinois you need a Governor to be arrested and a total crook. The constitution does not provide detailed protection against crooks. If the Federal Government is going to start mandating special elections then it needs to pay for them. Nate you say 31 million is nothing for a state government but in a time when every state is having huge problems balancing its budget and trying to determine where to make substantial funding cuts 31 million will preserve a number of jobs or provide healthcare to a lot of uninsured kids. This is a once in a blue moon occurrence and it is complete overkill to try to have a constitutional amendment.
Of course you can "put a price on democracy". You can put a price on life (have you ever crossed a busy street?) In a cost-benefit analysis you need to consider both the costs and the benefits, and while a special election may not be all that expensive, how beneficial is it, really? At some points (e.g. a California Senate vacancy with just a few months left in the term) it seems too expensive to me. At others it may be well worth it.
As for a much larger house as a tool to prevent gerrymandering: I think it would instead make gerrymandering considering easier. This is most obvious when you look at small states: obviously a state that currently has a single district gains the ability to gerrymander when the House size is multiplied. A state with two districts has few options. When you get more districts to play with, it allows you to have more efficient "packing and cracking", allowing for more successful gerrymandering.
A useful clause for Sen. Feingold
"Congress may by law provide for the temporary filling of vacancies amongst its own members. This power may only be exercised where the number of vacancies and incapacities in either House shall be such that no quorum can be attained."
Can I stick my oar into this, as a non-US resident or citizen?
Just a few observations.
1 Yes ok, the US is bigger than the other democracies in terms of size and population (well, maybe not Canada or Brazil in terms of size. I don't think that Russia necessarily qualifies as a democracy). So it would be more expensive and time consuming to hold a special election. But other than that, what reasons are there? And no, the possible obliteration of the whole of Congress is not a reason. As someone earlier said, we would have other things to worry about if that happened.
2 Name me one other democracy that appoints legislators when there is a vacancy. There may be one - go on, surprise me.
3 Name me one other democracy that has such huge disparities between the value of a vote in say Wyoming, and the value of a vote in say California. Yes, we all have constituencies of different sizes, but name me somewhere that has institutionalised unfairness which can't be changed by redrawing consituency boundaries.
4 Name me another democracy that has an EC. Explain to me why all other democracies are at a disadvantage by not having one.
5 Yes I know the EC may have been set up for good reasons, but that was more than 200 years ago. So name me another democracy, or another part of your own voting systems (there *may* be some) which are exactly the same as they were 200 years ago.
BTW, criticising these aspects of US democracy does not mean I think everything about the way you do things is flawed. You at least *have* a constitution. And both the House and the Senate are normally elected - no hereditary peers or use of the honours system.
"2 Name me one other democracy that appoints legislators when there is a vacancy. There may be one - go on, surprise me."
OK, let's see:
UK: House of Lords is almost wholly appointed (though it doesn't have vacancies, per se, but a fluctuating membership).
Germany: Bundesrat is wholly appointed by the Länder governments in the first place.
Northern Ireland: Each candidate appoints a successor before they are elected; effectively there are 108 vice-MLAs who replace the MLAs if there is a vacancy.
Ben Smith at Politico makes 2 good points:
Special elections are also flawed vehicles, exaggerating the power of organized interests.
And, if Senators Burris, Gillibrand, Kaufman, and Bennet have much political sense, they'll sign on as co-sponsors tomorrow.
Richard- you forgot Canada's Senate- it's a lifetime appointment made by the PM.
Mrs B
The Wyoming vs California distinction can be seen in Canada. Much like our Congressional districts, they have Parliamentary ridings. Both are determined by the population in that area, so Montréal will have more ridings in it than Medicine Hat, and Quebéc will have more than Nunavut.
Other than that, I agree that no matter how pricey it is to hold special elections, they should be held anyway.
Oh dear...Russ, Russ, Russ (and if you don't want to read all of this, just scroll to the next to last paragraph).
This reminds me, in an indirect way, of the lame-duck session of the Illinois General Assembly back in '96. The GOP has just had their asses handed to 'em --Clinton won the state by upwards of 15 points; Dick Durbin won Paul Simon's old senate seat with something on the order of two-thirds of the vote; the Republicans, IIRC, lost the state House and only retained their hold on the state Senate by a single vote; and a popular incumbent GOP State's Attorney for Cook County got beat.
A significant measure of blame for the Republican debacle was laid at the feet of straight-party balloting, so they eliminated it during the lame-duck legislative session --which I think of every time I go down a ballot ticking off the boxes next to the names of Democratic candidates (which I'd always done before anyway, but still).
To the matter at hand, I'll echo what others have suggested --even if this Feingold thing doesn't gain traction sufficient to get it passed (and I hope that it doesn't), it at least might inspire state legislatures to examine the issue and, perhaps, enact some sensible legislation.
As a general matter, I'm fine with temporary gubernatorial appointments pending special elections held in the next Congressional cycle to fill the remainders of unexpired terms.
If you don't like the way that your governor appoints temporary replacements, then you'll have an opportunity to vote him or her (or his/her party) out of office at the next gubernatorial election (and it was in that spirit that I gleefully voted against the statewide ballot initiative on the institution of recall elections last 4th November).
As a safeguard against a Senate seat getting Blagojevich'd, I'd propose something along the lines of allowing a supermajority of a state's legislature --two-thirds, three-fourths or perhaps even greater-- being empowered to turn thumbs down on a proposed appointment in what in almost all instances would amount to a routine ratification vote.
As for the Electoral College, at least it would prevent some regional mutant from running up a massive vote in one part of the country while only winning totals in the low single digits elsewhere but --assuming that the backstop in the House of Representatives is also done away with-- riding a popular vote plurality in a multi-sided race all the way to the White House (turn back the clock a little bit and imagine a President David Duke under such a scenario or, more realistic, George Wallace).
We're Americans --we're not big on unanimity and seem to recognize its inherent dangers instinctively, but we do warm to consensus or at least the general appearance thereof, which is where a decisive 365-173 spread in the EC fills in any blanks left over from a comparatively much narrower winning margin of 7.25 percent in the popular vote nationwide.
People in my state are fond of phoning up talk-radio on the morning after presidential elections in which their candidate gets thumped and moaning about "feeling totally disenfranchised" because all of the state's EVs went to the other guy under the rules.
Well, boo hoo --but if we went with the national popular vote model, then 46 and a half million McCain supporters from sea to shining see would've been obliged to feel much the same way on 5th November, eh? It's a zero-sum game with only one winner either way (although I would like to see some tweaking of the EC apportionment to make it more accurately reflective of state populations relative to others --no more of this "Wyoming will always get no fewer than three" bullcrap-- and we're at a point at which it could be pegged to turnout, but that's getting entirely beyond the scope of this discussion).
And don't even get me started on the whole "disenfranchisement" canard from last year's primaries --if the parties still selected their nominees in smoke-filled rooms, then I'd be happy to vote for one of them if one were acceptable to me, and I wouldn't vote for either if they weren't; as it is, I appreciate the fact that they even invite me to vote in their primaries and, at least in my state, don't require me to register with them in order to do so.
It's America, baby --if I don't like it, I can always start my own party (and play by the rules made by the Dems/GOP and see how far it gets me lol).
So to sum it up (and a Bozo button to those who've made it this far, with a Blue Peter badge reserved for Mrs B), I don't like the Feingold proposal on its face but can see what good it might do otherwise. I'm all for the general concept and practice of citizen participation, but I'm also in favor of generous leeway being given to those who govern with our consent --and that includes both making temporary appointments to fill portions of vacancies in elective offices and, in at least a hypothetical sense, acting as a backstop against the popular election of a dangerous imbecile to the Presidency with less than a majority of votes cast nationwide.
WV: dronally (adv.) --I could go on and on, as this and related topics are of intense interest to me, but I fear that others would adjudge me to be doing so dronally and would snort things like "Get your own damn blog!"
Ack!
if we went with the national popular vote model, then 46 and a half million McCain supporters from sea to shining see
Right, that'd be 59.95 million, and it's spelt s-e-a.
It's early, folks --and remember that The UpTake
will have all the stuff from the Minny senate race contest starting @ 1:00 PM Central today.
Well, one "ostensibly nonpartisan" argument against the amendment is that the states have determined their own laws on this issue for almost a century with only one notable instance of overt fraud. The Senate's ethics record on just about any issue is far worse than the 1 incident in 97 years the states have on this one.
First, the state's have not exactly determined their own laws on the filling of senate vacancies. Their options are restricted to governor appointment or special election; the state legislature choosing is simply not an option. Second, undoubtedly, much of the current legal landscape is the result of inertia rather than a conscious choice by a state to allow the governor to select a replacement senator. It would be interesting to see when was the last time that a state enacted a law allowing the governor to fill a senate vacancy--I'd bet it's been decades. Finally, it's not just a matter of preventing "overt fraud." The issue is what's best. Preventing overt fraud, influence peddling, nepotism, and the appointment of political hacks and getting the best senator are all benefits of electing senators. More fundamentally, even if elections do not produce better senators, allowing the people to choose their own representatives is a good in and of itself.
4 Name me another democracy that has an EC. Explain to me why all other democracies are at a disadvantage by not having one.
In a very real sense the UK (and all [almost all?] other parlimentary governments) have an EC. The Prime Minister is selected by the Members of Parliament (coincidentally, the 646 MPs is roughly equivalent to our 538 electors). Just like in the USA, the electorate does not vote for the President/Prime Minister directly, but rather chooses the electors.
Nate, I love your work. But you and Feingold are wrong about this one. What happens if there's a catastrophic event that kills large numbers of the members of Congress? We live in an age where, sadly, this is a serious possibility. The country could go for months without legislators to balance out the executive branch. After 9/11, an amendment was actually proposed giving governors the right to appoint House members because the Constitution currently demands they be elected. Appointment might look silly or not so politically bright, but for continuity of government sake we need to expand this appointment power, not end it.
@horatio: I think Feingold's on the right track.
If you want to propose a national catastrophe rule, go ahead. But that possibility shouldn't be used to block a long overdue sensible constitutional changel
Mrs. B:
Your oar asks good questions. I'll address this one:
"Name me one other democracy that has such huge disparities between the value of a vote in say Wyoming, and the value of a vote in say California."
Malaysia is an illiberal democracy, in the sense that it has censorship, restricts freedom of assembly, has an Internal Secrets Act that permits legal imprisonment without charge, and subjects only one class of people (Muslims) to shari'ah law (not hudud punishments like stoning and amputation, but still a disparate treatment under the law), and its elections can be described as free but not fair (i.e., you are free to vote as you wish and the votes are very likely to be fairly counted, but media coverage and vote weighting are unfair). All that said, their parliamentary constituencies are deliberately set up in such a way as to make one vote count for much more if you live in a rural district than if you live in an urban district. I believe there are other countries like that. I wish we weren't one of them, though.
Bob posted:
"If the Federal Government is going to start mandating special elections then it needs to pay for them."
Why special elections only? Why not require the Federal Government to pay for all Federal elections? And if such a requirement were imposed, would you drop your opposition to Russ Feingold's amendment?
I agree that this amendment would be dead on arrival at state houses if it even got that far. At the moment, states can craft the solution that they feel is right for them, so the probability that at least thirteen of them don't want a federally-mandated solution is extremely high, if only over sovereignty issues. I agree that states should be contemplating reform, but the only way that this could conceivably go anywhere is if a sizable number of legislatures attempted to enact reform and those bills were vetoed by their respective governors.
I'm also not won over by the fundamental assumption that an appointed senator who does not win re-election represents an error in the governor's judgment. You can be an effective representative and still be out-campaigned, especially by someone of the opposing party who has been planning on contesting a seat for longer than the vacancy has been filled.
Yet another bad idea. Worst idea since the 17 amendment itself passed. The Senate is no longer the saucer conceived to check the passions of the house and the mob...
Horatio! I knew him well!
Listen, Bush was a national disaster, and unlike 9/11 which was over and done with in a day, that disaster lasted eight awful years. Should we have just appointed all the senators and congressmen the whole time he was in office?
In all seriousness, Fear is no excuse for suspending democracy. Democracy is what we ARE, it's the only thing we have in common as a nation. Once you take that away, there is nothing left to defend.
It,s all too easy to take advantage of someone by instilling panic in them. Have you ever been in contact with a high pressure salesman? If someone has a low-quality product and they want tyou to buy it, they don't talk about the merits and flaws of the product rationally-they freak you out, telling you how much you need it and how it's going to be sold in another ten seconds if you don't buy it right now!
Same thing with politicians. The GOP is a weak party right now, precisely because the whole country realizes they got sold a lemon in George Bush. You did your high pressure salesmanship on 9/11, exploited the dead by using the images of the Twin Towers to freak us out and instill panic and fear and hate. Then you took us to Iraq, and we went along with it because you had us so scared we couldn't think rationally. Then you tried to scare us about gay people marrying, and about immigrants, and anyone else you could find to use as a scapegoat.
Well, we're not buying anything you have to sell anymore. You can only sustain paranoia for so long, and people have started to sober up to the intoxication you plied us with to take advantage of us.
You had your eight years and your bilked us for your 700 billion dollar bailouts and ran up trillions in deficits and spent it all on Haliburton. The party's over.
You can't control us anymore.
You don't need a Constitutional Amendment to ditch the Electoral College. You just need to get your state to support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact a.k.a. the "Amar Plan". (Unless you live in Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, or New Jersey). So simple, so obvious in retrospect. And can be accomplished with relatively few state legislatures.
A worthwhile Constitutional Amendment would limit Supreme Court members to 15-20 years, a Senator to 2 terms, and just 6 terms for a Representative.
That's change I can believe in.
This amendment about Senators appointed by a Governors is smoke and mirrors. It's a non-issue.
I like this becausse it provides consistency. To those here and elsewhere that have been demanding special lections in IL, DE, NY and CO this year, I have been arguing that we are hogtieing democrats while allowing GOP govs free rein.
But I don't think this will be passed. Like most good government measures, it is a boring and slightly complicated process item and most of America already can't remember who Roland Burris is by now.
How many of the current Senate was originally appointed? I think of 8 right off the top: Murkowski, Wicker, Barrasso, Burris, Menendez, Gillibrand, Bennet, Kaufman. I think that Senators are loathe to change the way people are elected/appointed to the Senate.
When Tim Johnson suffered his near-stroke, there were a lot of articles about how many senators were nearly incapacitated and held their seats (Thurmond and Burdick being the poster boys), and there was at least the implication that something should be changed so a functional senator could be appointed or elected to fill their seats.
But the Senate doesn't mess with "what works." And they won't this time either.
GoldenAh, what's WRONG with Senator Feingold's amendment? "Other things are more important" is NOT a good argument.
That said, why do you want to change the terms of legislators? I don't see the point.
I would favor an amendment that provided a uniform rule that vacancies shall be filled by an election held within three months of their occurrence (due to death, incapacitation, resignation, or expulsion of the incumbent).
In the interim, the governor or the state legislature could appoint someone to fill the short-term (3-mos.) vacancy but that person could not be a candidate for the vacancy-filling election.
If a vacancy should occur within three months of a regularly scheduled election, this same short-term appointment option would apply.
Simple. Add the name of the replacement to the ballot. If the electorate can vote for Obama/Biden they can also vote for Clinton/Kennedy (what a combo...).
"A new effort to empower the people," statement by Senator Feingold on Daily Kos
how about IF a Senator leaves the position by either choice OR incapacitation/death
THEN the other candidate who ran in the prior general election & got the secong most cumulative votes [in case of 3rd party candidates like in MN]will automatically be appointed to fill the vacancy on a temp basis until another special election can be scheduled
that would not only be a strong disincentive for parties to keep running decrepit old men who are likely to die in office [Thurmond, Byrd et al] for fear of losing the seat
and would ensure that the states would run the best candidates & schedule the special election ASAP
at least then the replacement had been through an election & properly vetted by the voters - and hold the candidates to their pledge to fulfill their term when they run for 6 years [as opposed to jumping ship for another job like Governor or POTUS]
one job at a time, and no overlapping endless campaigning allowed
how many sitting senators in 2007 & 2008 basically abandoned their jobs in DC to try to run for POTUS
such as McCain who was not present & voting in DC for almost all of last year
want the job ? give up the seat & run knowing who your replacement would be... fwiw
or term limits rather than a lifetime security. I agree that lifetime appointments to SCOTUS are also not 'democratic' & set time limits or revolving seat appointments makes much more sense for the good of the country rather than encouraging the elderly & impaired to hange around way past their prime
the judiciary should be healthy, alert, & up to date on current legal thought as well as schooling by constant scheduled 'refreshing' of the courts at all levels
I understand the knee jerk reaction that people have wanting "more democracy". Personally, I'd rather go back to the days when state legislatures picked the Senators. The point of the Senate was a buffer for the mob. Now it's just another fiefdom that requires someone of tremendous wealth to run OR is willing to spend 70% of their time fund raising to get there and stay there.
More than that, I'd generally prefer abolishing the Senate altogether. It's an outlandishly undemocratic institution that is only holding back progress. With the filibuster, it allows 11% of the population to hold the other 89% hostage.
But if we're going to keep it, we need to have a way to ensure continuity of government in a crisis. Fine, have a special election. But in the mean time, we can't have swaths of empty seats in Congress. We need a functioning legislative branch, however imperfect.
In closing, I'd also remind those democracy loving people who insist on elections at any cost to consider what that did for Palestine. Hamas, hello?
Elections aren't always the best choice.
Mend it, don't end it.
"As for the Electoral College, at least it would prevent some regional mutant from running up a massive vote in one part of the country while only winning totals in the low single digits elsewhere."
Are you retarded?
DCM in FL posted:
"how about IF a Senator leaves the position by either choice OR incapacitation/death
THEN the other candidate who ran in the prior general election & got the secong most cumulative votes [in case of 3rd party candidates like in MN]will automatically be appointed to fill the vacancy on a temp basis until another special election can be scheduled"
TERRIBLE anti-democratic idea. You could have an election in which the winning candidate got 80% of the vote and then was assassinated or got hit by a car, whereupon, their opponent, from a deeply unpopular party in that state, who got 20% of the vote, was automatically appointed to replace them. HORRIBLE!
horatio, your post is in constant disagreement with itself, which is what I would call an incoherent argument. Do you want more democracy or less democracy? Make up your mind. And remember not to vote for the Hamas candidate for U.S. Senator, the next time they run one.
DCM in FL posted:
"how about IF a Senator leaves the position by either choice OR incapacitation/death
THEN the other candidate who ran in the prior general election & got the secong most cumulative votes [in case of 3rd party candidates like in MN]will automatically be appointed to fill the vacancy on a temp basis until another special election can be scheduled"
Did you consider that if your 'solution' were in effect in the last three months, the junior Senator from Illinois would be Alan Keyes?
Really?
REALLY??
MIKE
yup I did consider that.
IF Keyes was going to be the temp caretaker/placeholder of Obama's senate seat - do you not believe that IL would have scheduled a special election posthaste/damn the expense ???
bet they woulda had the election completed by now even since Obama resigned back in November...
the idea I floated, while partly in jest, was intended to act as an incentive
at least Keyes stood for election - did Burris ???
besides, we are talking 2-3 months tops if the state has sufficient motivation
or they could even schedule the special election once notice is given of intent to resign inthe future [like for Biden & Clinton] and have the election on or about the same time as the seat goes 'vacant'
remember, back in the early days of this nation, the second place POTUS candidate became VP as I recall even though he was the opposition...
so the losing candidate became the 1st sucessor to POTUS
same basic idea here - the losing senate candidate with the highest vote total becomes the senator-in-waiting in case of a vacancy...
@DCM: yeah, well the Founders realized pretty quickly that putting the #2 finisher in the successor slot was a bad idea. It greatly enhances the incentives for assassinations.
Michael ... having elections doesn't necessarily make our system of government more democratic. That's my point.
"Having elections doesn't necessarily make our system of government more democratic."
Are you retarded?
besides people tend to forget that in states where the other party or a 3rd party holds the Governorship, then the seat can be flipped - is that democratic ?
nope - look it happened in MN in 2002 when Wellstone met his untimely death. Venture [3rd party] appointed his lackey, Dean Barkley as a placeholder who has run twice since & managed to screw up BOTH the 2002 & 2008 senate races in favor of Norm Coleman...
besides, if Norm ultimately prevails [doubtful but never say never] & then goes to prison or resigns in disgrace - under my poposal Al Franken would automatically become the next senator !!!
anyway, the point is that Gov appointments SUCK & there are plenty of better ways to populate a vacant seat
---------------------------------
look at NY - who did Paterson please the most with Gillibrand ?
THE GOPers - who are happy, happy, happy
'GOP happier with Gillibrand, says poll'
"Republicans are happier than Democrats with New York’s new Democratic U.S. senator, according to a poll released Monday..."
@ http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2009/01/26/daily5.html?ana=from_rss
and who shot himself in the foot & is no longer the favorite to win re-election as NY Gov due to this miserable appointment process & lackluster choice ? PATERSON !!!
guess it is looking very good for Cuomo to knock off the Gov in 2010 since he failed to impress [nicest way I can word it...]
and flailing on the state budget doesn't help either
horatio, if you're going to make such a tendentious statement, you'd do a lot better by trying to make your argument. In the world I live in, electing the people who supposedly represent us DOES make a system of government more democratic. That's the obviously logical point of view. You're making a counterintuitive point, and just expecting people to accept it without an argument?
The link to Louisiana's laws was absolutely priceless. I have never seen a more arcane and absurd process in my life and almost cried laughing at my desk here at work.
Kay Bailey Hutchison became a US Senator via special election. In 1993, Bill Clinton named Sen. Lloyd Bentsen as Treasury Secretary. Ann Richards filled his seat with Bob Krueger. Hutchison defeated Kruger 67-33 in the special election, and then won her own term in 1994 61-38, and has won re-election in 2000 and 2006.
It's unlikely that Democrats could have held that seat post-Bentsen in Texas, but it shows that Richards' appointment was not a popular choice in Texas.
"Michael ... having elections doesn't necessarily make our system of government more democratic."
Horatio isn't wrong here. He said that having elections doesn't necessarily make our system of government more democratic. Case in point, the 2000 election. Even if you didn't think it was rigged (though try explaining how 20,000 black voters getting purged from Florida's registered voter list happened and then you can tell me that it wasn't rigged) we had a split decision between electoral and popular vote count. Hardly a democratic process. Historically this is also true--Hitler came to power via a free "democratic" election. I guess all I'm trying to say is that popular elections don't ensure a more democratic government, even in our own experience.
On an unrelated point, I'm surprised that Nate didn't consider the fact that Constitutional Amendments require 3/4 of the several States to agree to the proposed Amendment. These state conventions are called to order by--guess who--the governor. In many cases the candidates to be convention delegates are also nominated by the governor. So-explain to me how 3/4 of the state conventions are going to ratify an amendment that strips their governor of one of his or her more notable powers. Sadly, I highly doubt it.
Seems like it might be a good idea if you could draw some boundaries around it. One tweak I'd suggest is that if the next scheduled election was only (say) 6 months or even a year way, it might be a waste of time/money to have a separate election -- in cases like that, just let the Gov appoint someone. Another would be to still retain some provision for interim appointments so that the state was not under-represented during the pendency of a special election. (i.e. the gov could seat someone for 90 days while the election was conducted). As Franken-Coleman is showing, you could still end up with a situation where a state has to run with one Senator for a while, which isn't fair to that state.
Though I also agree with another poster who pointed out there's nothing preventing individual states from taking action if they so choose.
There is no need for a constitutional amendment to force timely special elections.
Congress under Article I, Section 4 has time and manner authority over senate elections. It first exercised this authority when senators were elected by the legislature. In particular it provided procedures to avoid deadlocks between two chambers, and required new votes to be held on a particular day of the week.
While it could have set an actual date for the election, it chose not to do so. At the time the Constitution was adopted, most legislatures were elected and met annually; and a few were even on a 6-month schedule. The Federalist had to provide a justification for an election cycle for federal representative so long as two years.
With Congress itself only meeting a few months each year, there was little risk of long term appointments by the governor. And a temporary (recess) appointment was only valid until the legislature met - not until it had elected a replacement.
Congress first exercised its time authority with respect to representatives in 1872 when it set the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November(it had previously set this date for the "appointment" of presidential electors in 1845). After the 17th Amendment was adopted, the date was extended to senate elections.
An election to fill a senate vacancy is an election, and therefore Congress may legislate the time of that election. For example, it could require it to be held within 60 days of the time of the vacancy. A State could continue to provide for a temporary appointment of a senator, but that appointment would only be valid until the election.
You (Nate Silver) misunderstand Texas law with respect to special elections to fill senate vacancies.
If a vacancy in an even-numbered year occurs after January 1st, but more than 63 days before the primary, the election will be filled in November, with nominations by primaries.
But the primary is the first Tuesday in March, which in 2010 is March 2nd, the 61st day of the year. So there is no possible time that a resignation could occur that would trigger a ordinary November election.
So instead a special election will be held on the next uniform election date (after a period set aside for election preparation). There used to be 4 uniform election dates, but the February and August dates have been eliminated, leaving dates in May (2nd Saturday) and November (first Tuesday after the first Monday).
The governor may also also call for an emergency election at an earlier date (he simply is required to state the nature of the emergency).
A senate special election will be conducted without primaries, with a majority vote required (even if it is held in November). In the last such election, in 1993, following Lloyd Bentsen's resignation to become Commerce secretary, at which Kay Bailey Hutchison was first elected, there were 24 candidates on the ballot. In the previous such election, in 1961, following Lyndon Johnson's resignation to become Vice President, at which John Tower was first elected, there were 70 candidates on the ballot.
I can't be bothered to read all 122 comments so maybe it's a repeat. But here it goes. Since additional elections are expensive, why doesn't every Senatorial election also include a provisional senator election. This person could have a regular job, but he/she would have to campaign for the provisional position and be voted on by the people. Then if the actual Senator doesn't serve out his/her term, the provisional senator steps in. It works out especially nicely in situations like Biden's seat where there's a decent chance he won't serve out his term, the campaign for the provisional is much more fierce.
There, that's settled.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,約定金生,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,約定金生,情趣網站,跳蛋, 約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,約定金生,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,約定金生,潮吹,高潮,後庭,約定金生,情色論譠,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,約定金生,音樂下載, 約定金生,約定金生,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套, 約定金生,約定金生,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,約定金生,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車, 約定金生,手機,來電答鈴, 約定金生,週年慶,美食,約定金生,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計, 約定金生,室內設計, 約定金生,靈異照片,約定金生,同志,約定金生,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解,av女優, 約定金生,小說,約定金生,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,約定金生,討論區,痴漢,懷孕, 約定金生,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,約定金生,免費影片,醫學美容, 約定金生,免費算命,算命,約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學,約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲, 約定金生,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,約定金生,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,約定金生,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片, 約定金生,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表, 約定金生,線上電視,約定金生,線上a片,約定金生,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,約定金生,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車, 約定金生,約定金生,法拍屋,約定金生,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, 約定金生, G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,約定金生,後庭,情色論譠,約定金生,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,約定金生,軟體下載,約定金生,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,約定金生,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片, 約定金生,同志,聊天室,約定金生,運動彩券,,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,約定金生,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢, 約定金生,懷孕,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av ,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,約定金生,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命, 約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學, 約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,約定金生,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視, 約定金生,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯, 約定金生,購物車,身分證製造機,約定金生,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網, 約定金生,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,約定金生,六合彩,整型論壇,整型論壇,珠海,雷射溶脂,婚紗,網頁設計,水噹噹論壇,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,
Keep blogging.
Good luck.
花蓮入口網|花蓮|花蓮民宿|花蓮美食|花蓮消費券|花蓮旅遊|花蓮|花蓮電影|花蓮|花蓮海洋公園|花蓮縣長|花蓮遠來飯店|花蓮提拉米蘇|花蓮客運|蜂膠|花蓮太魯閣|花蓮廣告|花蓮地圖|花蓮旅遊|花蓮民宿|花蓮房屋|花蓮租車|花蓮汽車|花蓮餐廳|花蓮旅館|花蓮瑞穗牧場|花蓮名產|花蓮3600|花蓮租屋|花蓮理想大地|大月映|花蓮廣告|花蓮租車旅遊-TTA租車公司|花蓮餐廳|花蓮租車旅遊網|花蓮入口網|花蓮旅遊|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮
I think a special election is a good idea, but I think this is (and should be left as) a 10th amendment issue. Let the states choose how they replace their own Senator.
花蓮,賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,租車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊網,花蓮,租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花莲租车,租车,租車,花莲,租車公司,行易花蓮租車旅遊網,花蓮,租車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊景點,花蓮,一日遊,一日遊,溯溪,賞鯨,泛舟,花莲租车,租车,花莲,花莲旅游,花莲租车,租车,花莲,花莲旅游,租车,花莲,花莲旅游,租车,花莲租车,花莲,花莲旅游,花蓮,花東,租車,花蓮,花蓮,旅遊,花東,租車,花蓮,花蓮,租車,花東,花蓮,旅遊,花東,租車,花蓮,旅遊租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,租車,花蓮旅行社,花蓮旅遊景點,花蓮旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊地圖,花蓮一日遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車旅遊網,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花東旅遊景點,租車,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊行程,花東旅遊地圖,花蓮租車公司,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車 ,花蓮 租車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊網,花蓮租車網,花蓮,租車,花東 旅遊,花蓮 租車,花蓮,旅遊,租車公司,花蓮,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊,花蓮地圖,包車,花蓮,旅遊租車,花蓮 租車,租車,花蓮租車資訊網,花蓮旅遊,租車,花東,花東地圖,租車公司,租車網,花蓮租車旅遊,租車,花蓮,賞鯨,花蓮旅遊租車,花東旅遊,租車網,花蓮海洋公園,租車 ,花蓮 租車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車公司,租車花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅行社,花東旅遊,花蓮包車,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮一日遊,租車服務,花蓮租車公司,花蓮包車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮租車,租車網,花蓮租車公司,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車,租車服務,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,租車公司,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車網,花蓮租車,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮包車,花蓮溯溪,花蓮泛舟,花蓮溯溪,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,租車公司,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,花蓮泛舟,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮溯溪,花蓮泛舟,花蓮泛舟,花蓮溯溪,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮,花東,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮,花東,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮,花東旅遊萬事通,花蓮旅遊,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮包車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮太魯閣,花蓮包車,花東旅遊,花蓮旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊,花蓮 租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車旅遊,花蓮旅遊租車,租車,花蓮旅遊推薦,花蓮旅遊包車,花蓮租車,花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮地圖,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊資訊網,花蓮旅遊景點,賞鯨,花蓮旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊租車,花東旅遊景點,花東旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,租車,花東旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮,旅遊達人,旅遊達人blog,花蓮租車旅遊資訊網,花蓮,租車,花蓮,花東旅遊,地圖,租車,賞鯨泛舟溯溪,租車,[ 芝麻店家 ] 花蓮租車旅遊資訊網,花蓮租車-花蓮旅遊租車資訊網 ,旅遊網,旅遊景點,花蓮行程,花蓮,花東,旅遊租車,旅遊,花蓮,租車,花東旅遊,花蓮租車旅遊,行易旅遊民宿資訊網,民宿,推薦花蓮民宿,花蓮民宿推薦,花蓮民宿,花蓮民宿資訊網,花蓮民宿網,花蓮民宿資訊網,花蓮,旅遊,花蓮,一日遊,花蓮好玩的地方,花蓮,,一日遊,花東,租車,旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊-花東旅遊萬事通
キャッシング
網頁設計
クレジットカード 現金化
ダンボール
留学
水 通販
ウィークリーマンション
障害者
有料老人ホーム
看板 製作
レーザー脱毛
フランチャイズ
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
The survey found that consumer 3G wholesale china from the crowd of view, the buyer 25 to 40 years old mainly white-collar workers, accounting for about 40%, followed by consumer groups of students, accounting for about three into. According to statistics, 3G wholesale products in sales, compared with a 2G mobile phone sales are still a wide gap between, but since June has been, 3G mobile phones increase in the average monthly buy products for more than 50%, "11" period due to holiday business, the increase of more than 150%. Pk that the "11" after the peak sales of 3G handsets likely to usher in more stable growth.
By comparing the traditional Internet users, Internet users to iResearch found that the traditional white-collar-based, cell phones wholesale, corporate general staff accounted for 18.9%, higher than the 5.6% of the wholesale cell phones users accounting; and discount cell phones users in the years students and blue-collar workers accounted for significantly more than the traditional Internet users, respectively, accounting for 19.5% and 18.9%, higher than the traditional Internet users Students and blue-collar workers accounted for 7.8% and 5.1% respectively.
From cell phones users to see the specific situation of occupational segmentation in 2009, accounting for 19.5% of students dropped 21.2 percent over last year, other types of occupations than those last year, the proportion of Internet users cheap cell phones increase. White collar crowd from last year's 29.2% increase to 38.9% this year, accounting for 9.7 percentage points up to replace the student groups cellphone users as one of the biggest occupational hierarchy; blue-collar crowd from last year's 13.9% to 18.9% this year, accounting for rose by 5.0 percentage points, showing that mobile phones users by a group of students to the occupational groups a significant trend in the development. Ereli advice that, cheap cell phones and mobile phone users Internet users monthly income distribution of age, education, occupational distribution has strong correlation with high spending capacity of white-collar workers and some students in the crowd will be a huge cell phone china online potential consumer groups.
Post a Comment