I think Steve Chapman draws exactly the right lesson from the Blagojevich’s attempt to auction a Senate seat:
Okay, so it’s obvious we don’t want Rod Blagojevich choosing a replacement to fill Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat. But is it obvious we want any governor to have that power?
Of all the things a governor has the authority to do, this is the one that reeks most of King George III. One senator, Dick Durbin, holds his office because the people of Illinois voted for him. The other, to be named later, would hold his or hers just because the governor said so. Neither the legislature nor the courts nor the voters have any role.
Even absent corrupt motives, that role asks too much of any governor. No one can accurately represent the wishes of the people of the state, and no one should try.
If a House seat opens up more than six months before the next regular congressional election, it’s filled by a special election, letting the people choose their representative. But if there are less than two years left in a Senate term, they have no say for that entire period. It’s an insult to democracy.
Why do we tolerate this procedure? Partly because it’s invoked so rarely, making it hardly worth our time to change it. And partly because special elections are expensive. But so are regular elections, and nobody proposes to save money by doing away with them.
The people of Illinois chose Barack Obama to be their senator. Now that he’s moved on, they are the only ones who should choose his successor.
This episode powerfully illustrates why governors should not have the power to appoint senators. It also suggests that governors might have other powers that invite corruption and also need to be limited or stripped. Now would be an opportune time to look for some of those.
[HT: Kevin O'Reilly in the comments below]
Okay, so it’s obvious we don’t want Rod Blagojevich choosing a replacement to fill Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat. But is it obvious we want any governor to have that power
I would invite anyone to show an instance where favoritism, politics, cronyism and/or corruption did not take place when a Governor appointed someone to replace a senator. I am certain, of course, that no money or favors will be involved when Caroline Kennedy becomes the next senator from New York. This will be done strictly based on her qualifications.
I would invite anyone to show an instance where favoritism, politics, cronyism and/or corruption did not take place when a Governor appointed someone to replace a senator. I am certain, of course, that no money or favors will be involved when Caroline Kennedy becomes the next senator from New York. This will be done strictly based on her qualifications.
I hope this raises the priority in people's minds and in Obama's mind of addressing the systemic causes of corruption, including too much concentration of power, too many incentives to be corrupt, and not enough transparency.
I believe Obama cares about this stuff. I know a lot of people in government don't care about it. I hope Obama enlists the aid of the American people in pushing a good governance agenda. That's how you get the people behind you.
I don't want to be written off here as a crazy libertarian who is defecting in a cooperation game. But why couldn't all of the same logic be applied to appointing judges, or Supreme Court justices, or presidential cabinets? In fact, just consider this paragraph: Even absent corrupt motives, that role asks too much of any governor. No one can accurately represent the wishes of the people of the state, and no one should try. One could say the same thing not just about appointments, but about representative democracy in general. It seems like Chapman is expressing a tautology more than an argument: making decisions in a less democratic way is less democratic. Okay, fine: and so? Clearly no one would say that limitations on democracy are always bad and only justified when the alternative is cost-prohibitive: that would seem to rule out most of the constitution. I would say that I think judges should be appointed rather than elected, and not for primarily cost reasons — it's because I think electing judges leads to worse judges.
Maybe the difference is that judges and cabinet members are supposed to be appointed, whereas senators are supposed to be elected. Senators are, in theory, supposed to carry out the will of the people through legislative action. Judges are supposed to act as a counter-majoritarian check on government power–therefore it makes sense not to elect them. Similarly, cabinet members are needed to give advice and make decisions free of political calculations; they are supposed to take the best course of action (or recommend it) without regards to its popularity.
Whether it works like this in practice is another issue. But the position of senator really is different from a judge or cabinet member.
Which theory, though? They weren't directly elected originally, so clearly not the original theory. You could say the theory of the people amending the constitution, but I'm not sure they had a theory in general, or if they did that it didn't amount to saying “increasing democracy is an end in itself.”
Are there really a lot of discussions about the degree of democracy that are speaking directly about the effect on the quality of policy? Always sounds like people talking wishing to better express the 'will of the people' to me.
I might agree but first I have to ask what better system do you have. Besides an election I can see no better person to appoint the senator then the governor. He is the most recognizable person in the state.
Ultimately I think it should be left to state choice.
Emergency elections are expensive. In the past the logistics of holding an election was much more an issue then it is today. If a state is ok with the cost of an election then fine. Otherwise the governor is not a bad choice.
As unfortunate as this episode is, I don't agree. The senator is supposed to represent the *state*, which is a political entity, in a larger political entity, the Senate. This is why once upon a time he was chosen by the state legislature, as that was thought the most plausible source for finding the will of the state. If representation of the *people* is the primary concern, then the whole senate idea should be scrapped, since it isn't terribly representative to have the *people* of Vermont possess 1/50 of the power in the Senate. It only makes sense if you view it in accordance with its rationale: one state, one share of the power. And indirect representation, we got–the governor is himself elected.
Thanks for the info. May God have mercy on us all.
Excellent, entertaining, useful reading, Thanks !!
awsome article men