Republican-passed bill removes role of Democratic governor if Senate vacancy occurs in Kentucky
Republican-passed bill removes role of Democratic governor if Senate vacancy occurs in Kentucky
Kentucky lawmakers have given final passage to a bill stripping the Democratic governor of any role in picking someone to occupy a U.S. Senate seat if a vacancy occurs.
Kentucky lawmakers gave final approval Thursday to a bill stripping the state’s Democratic governor of any role in picking someone to occupy a U.S. Senate seat if a vacancy occurred in the home state of 82-year-old Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.
The legislation calls for a special election to fill any Senate vacancy from the Bluegrass State. The special election winner would hold the seat for the remainder of the unexpired term.
You're viewing a single thread.
This wouldn't even fucking matter if there weren't 2 senators per state. The only reason anyone gives a shit is because senators in the US hold an insanely disproportionate amount of power in the government.
Yeah and for good reason.
Out of curiosity, what's the reason?
I should have said and been more clear. I mean it's good that we have a bicameral legislature with an upper and lower chamber. Bicameralism is good because it acts as a check and balance to the problem of a unicameral legislature being more susceptible to corruption as well as more existential threats, such as being dissolved by a president or taken over by the military.
Having a second chamber allows one to act as a revising body to the other, creates a back and forth that ultimately results in better legislation. Further, in America, I subscribe to the idea that the Senate--with its longer terms, smaller size, and equal distribution among the states--acts a cooling saucer to the more directly elected House, which comes in with hot ideas and mandates that have a two-year shelf life. The House is supposed to be more nimble and responsive. The Senate is less nimble but with more power vested in each seat. I'd be fine with expanding the sizes of both chambers, but they would need a new office building. I think unicameralism or even bicameralism in which both chambers have equal power would cause more problems than it solves.
I get that everyone hates the Senate but seems to love their Senator, and that certain senior senators end up locking up a seat until they are senile dinosaurs that die in office. My magic wand idea is that if there is a government shutdown or failure to fill a cabinet or Supreme Court vacancy, it should trigger a snap recall election of the senior senator's seat. They can run in it, but so can anyone else. I like the idea of six year terms, as a matter of consistency, for that cooling saucer factor, but if they can't do their jobs they should face the voters promptly. I also like the idea that the upper chamber has overlapping terms so as to operate continuously, instead of, as in our lower chamber, having all the members up for reelection every two years.
People hate the Senate because it's undemocratic, not because they hate bicameral legislature.
Thank you for elaborating. That sounds better reasoned than the first comment. I suspect the original comment you had replied to was lamenting that there were only 2 per state and not proportionate to population. I learned a new word today: Bicameral. I appreciate your reply!
How dare you question slave-holders from the 1700's?!