Democrats to deny public health care based on party registration

[rah]

You can't discuss one without the other. Both were initiated to keep the seat for dems. To think otherwise is silly. Yeah it's all about the people, right.

[Ramo]

What? You are the one who keeps insisting that leaving people not fully represented for five months is somehow "for the people." I have been an advocate of the Texas model for a few years now. The goal is to most closely approximate the preferences of the median voter.

[rah]

Again, I would agree with you if they hadn't changed it to their advantage not long ago.
Their motive is quite suspect because of that. And their motive is what I'm challanging, not the actual law. Let's keep that straight.

I personally think the gov should appoint the replacement, since the people are without rep the shortest amount of time.
And the gov is a rep of the people so I don't see a problem with it. (unless it's illinois and you have a dem crook of a gov, of course)

[Kuciwalker]

Tom Schaller disagrees with you, Ramo. I agree that it's a bad idea to have election law flip based on who's in power.

edit: wrong author

[Ramo]

WHO CARES ABOUT THE MOTIVE?

The issue is what is the most fair situation for the people of MA. A vacancy, which is effectively a Republican vote against cloture, is not. Given that a.) Kennedy was elected overwhelmingly, b.) Patrick was elected overwhelmingly c.) the entire Congressional delegation is Dem d.) the Dems have a ridiculous supermajority in the legislature, it's fair to say that is not the preference of the median voter. A Guv appointment is imperfect, since they may not represent the will of the people (in this case, Patrick is very unpopular). So the best solution is having the seat filled immediately, and have a special election as soon as practical. Which, incidentally, is exactly what we're talking about.

[Kuciwalker]

WHO CARES ABOUT THE MOTIVE?

The issue is what is the most fair situation for the people of MA.

No, because this doesn't exist in a vacuum. The state legislature, which supposedly represents the people of MA, voted that the governor should not be able to make special appointments.

[Ramo]

Tom Schaller disagrees with you, Ramo. I agree that it's a bad idea to have election law flip based on who's in power.

Nonetheless, that's what happens. Do you think election laws shouldn't change more than a certain frequency? And what is that frequency? Why is there a maximum frequency? Does McCain-Feingold mean that we can't revisit campaign finance for another few years? Or can we just because we have a Dem President now? Or can't we because the law primarily relied on Democratic support in Congress?

I think that the test for an election law is whether or not it makes the system of government more democratic. If it does (and doesn't interrupt already existing campaigns), the change sounds like a good thing to me.

[Ramo]

No, because this doesn't exist in a vacuum. The state legislature, which supposedly represents the people of MA, voted that the governor should not be able to make special appointments.

And that wouldn't exist in a vacuum if the lege (which you say represents the will of the poeple) were to change the law again.

[Kuciwalker]

Tom Schaller disagrees with you, Ramo. I agree that it's a bad idea to have election law flip based on who's in power.

Nonetheless, that's what happens. Do you think election laws shouldn't change more than a certain frequency?

I think they certainly shouldn't change based on which party controls the governor's seat...

[Kuciwalker]

No, because this doesn't exist in a vacuum. The state legislature, which supposedly represents the people of MA, voted that the governor should not be able to make special appointments.

And that wouldn't exist in a vacuum if the lege (which you say represents the will of the poeple) were to change the law again.

This sentence doesn't make any sense.

[Dinner]

What? You are the one who keeps insisting that leaving people not fully represented for five months is somehow "for the people." I have been an advocate of the Texas model for a few years now. The goal is to most closely approximate the preferences of the median voter.

Tell me more about this Texas model (Ick, I can't believe I just said that ). If it really does closely approximate the preferences of the median voter then it might be the best of bad options.

[Dinner]

WHO CARES ABOUT THE MOTIVE?

The issue is what is the most fair situation for the people of MA. A vacancy, which is effectively a Republican vote against cloture, is not. Given that a.) Kennedy was elected overwhelmingly, b.) Patrick was elected overwhelmingly c.) the entire Congressional delegation is Dem d.) the Dems have a ridiculous supermajority in the legislature, it's fair to say that is not the preference of the median voter. A Guv appointment is imperfect, since they may not represent the will of the people (in this case, Patrick is very unpopular). So the best solution is having the seat filled immediately, and have a special election as soon as practical. Which, incidentally, is exactly what we're talking about.

As long as the interim guy can't run in the General I wouldn't have a problem with that. The problem, as I see it, would be that who ever got appointed would basically be getting a five month head start of the special election campaign so if they got someone, like maybe former MA Gov Mike Dukakis, who was well versed in the issues but who has no desire to hold the office long term then that might be a good solution.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, because this doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Bingo. Politics is not a series of separate discreet transactions, it is more of a linear process.

[Ramo]

The Texas model is basically what Kennedy asked for. After a vacancy, the Governor appoints a temporary replacement, and calls for a special election within a couple months. In TX, there's an open primary, and the top two (of all parties) enter a runoff if no one gets a majority. In MA, it looks like there will be a closed primary, and then a general. The problem with this model is that there's no way to constitutionally prohibit someone for running for an election, so the nominee may be able to clear the field among members of their party. An unpopular governor could appoint a crony who then gets a full term, for example. I'd like to see a more accountable decision making process. For example, legislative leaders could have a vote along with the Governor. Or the pick must be a statewide official.

I think they certainly shouldn't change based on which party controls the governor's seat...

That's nice, but I'm glad that the government in MA are interested in bringing their Senate representation more in line with the preferences of the median voter.

This sentence doesn't make any sense.

Your argument based on the lege channeling the will of the people is invalid if the lege updates the rules.

[Dinner]

I do think the whole switching it then switching it back depending on which party is holding the Governor's position is crass but then again it's legal and if the people of MA don't like it then they can vote the bums out. Not that they will but still...