Who decides "disgrace"? You may think that Anthony Weiner's is a clear-cut example of resigning in disgrace, but would everyone agree that Newt Gingrich's resignation was so cut-and-dried?

I am against the concept of special elections to begin with. Most states just have the governor appoint someone to fill out the remainder of the term.

This, in my opinion, is the way it should be done. Special elections cost lots of money, whatever they are held for.

In my state, several years ago, the county used to set up special elections to try and pass tax increases and bond issues that had the support of groups like teachers unions, but no one else really. These issues had no chance of passage in a regular election.

The legislature finally put a stop to that because special elections, with generally low turnout are huge opportunities for special interests. I can see allowing them for a recall, but not for anything else.

Do you really want to put in a policy that would motivate a politician to not resign and need to be forced out? IHMO, it's more valuable to get rid of them, and well-worth the expense.

Depends, what did Weiner do that required an acctual resignation? He flirted badly with women he was looking to fuck - hardly a crime

Most states just have the governor appoint someone to fill out the remainder of the term.

This, in my opinion, is the way it should be done. Special elections cost lots of money, whatever they are held for.

So, a public official of one party in a state with a governor from the other party is forced out of office and the governor gets to choose the replacement. Yeah, that won't get abused.

Can anyone say, Rod Blagojevich? (No, seriously, can anyone say this guy's name?) That worked out well for Illniois, didn't it?

==============================

Perhaps the real solution to reducing the frequency of special elections is for the electorate to start taking the regular elections seriously.

Stop electing (and re-electing!) philanderers, cheats, thieves, goldbricks, and con artists.

Stop electing (and re-electing!) candidates who are nothing more than puppets on a string controlled by special interest groups - whatever the interest group.

Stop letting elections hinge on false narratives, bold faced lies, and personality contests. Who cares which candidate you'd rather have a beer with? Which one can handle the job?

Realistically, an election is a job interview. The electorate needs to start treating it like one.

==============================

And if they can't afford to reinbuse the cost of the special election, what then? Do they stay in the job, go to jail

While I appreciate the need for a more serious look at who we're sending to Washington and a greater need of making them answer to us, an election is not a job interview. A representative, senator, or president is not your employee. You did not hire him; you elected him. Congress hired him. You do not promote, fire, or counsel your elected official. You cannot give him raises, bonuses or nor any other incentive, other than your vote.

We really need to get away from the idea that our elected representatives are our employees. They're nothing of the sort. No one would ever want to be a boss if they had so little control over their employees as we have over our public officials.

The only government officials who bear any resemblance to employees are the Supreme Court Justices. They're interviewed and their "hired" (though really appointed), but not by us.

"So, a public official of one party in a state with a governor from the other party is forced out of office and the governor gets to choose the replacement. Yeah, that won't get abused."

Didn't claim that it was a perfect solution, But since the US is a republic, and not a democracy, it is certainly a valid method of choosing a temporary replacement.

Those of us who recognize that it is the states that are represented in the senate, and not the individual citizens, it makes sense to give either the governor or the state legislature a roll in picking their congressional representatives, especially for an interim appointment.

In the grand scheme of things, this has almost never made a political difference with hundreds of members in the house, and a hundred in the senate.

There is no way to take the money out of politics. As the current Obama scandals show, money and dirty tricks will buy either an election, or a governor. Take your pick.

I stand corrected. The constitution of the US requires a special election to replace a congressional representative.

This is not true of the Senate. Only 14 states by state law require a special election to replace a Senator.

By the way, in my state, we had a senator die in office, about six years ago. The governor, an honorable man, but a member of the opposing party replaced the senator with a member of his own party, and not the governor's party.

This would do little but encourage politicians to stay in office.

While I appreciate the need for a more serious look at who we're sending to Washington and a greater need of making them answer to us, an election is not a job interview. A representative, senator, or president is not your employee. You did not hire him; you elected him. -- Patrick at May 21, 2013 2:31 PM

The U.S. Constitution (which you have failed to read, or even have a grasp of the concepts) had the Senate made up of members picked by the individual state governments. The House was by popular vote by the members of the districts in the several states.

The power of the purse was given to the House so that the Senators (read states representatives) couldn't just willy-nilly blow money with out the House's (the people's representatives) permission.

The Senate was also supposed to block the House's blowing money in an unconstitutional way or that was a detriment to their particular state's government.

The 17th Amendment (direct election of senators) and the 16th Amendment (direct taxation) screwed it up.

So now both the House and the Senate do work for us. The problem is that Apportionment Act of 1911 which limits the size of the House added to the fuckup. The House should have over 3,100 members (1/100K citizens) if not more.

Another issue that was not addressed and probably would be abhorrent to the Founding Fathers was the party systems.

The House at the minimum, should be representing and voting as the members in their district desire not at the behest of the party. And on some issues this is true. Why do you think the recent gun control votes failed?

So the elected members of Congress are supposed to work for us. That they don't isn't helped by people like you that are no information voters.

Jim P., not sure what I did that offended you, but you're bound and determined to troll me. Perhaps you're upset because I called you on reading into my statements and inferred things that I never said.

Our elected are not our employees, period. The idea that a constituent-representative relationship even remotely resembles and employer-employee relationship is laughable on its face. Yes, they're supposed to work for our interests; however, they have different ideas as to what our best interests are. That's not what an employee does. An employee is supposed to do what the boss tells him, whether the employee thinks that's best or not.

And the Constitution (which you have neither read nor understand) does not say otherwise.

And your ramblings into irrelevant topics was nothing but an opportunity to convince us that you actually know what you're talking about. Guess what? It failed.

Our elected are not our employees, period. -- Patrick at May 21, 2013 9:19 PM

Perhaps you never heard of the Gettysburg Address:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Somehow even Lincoln recognized that we grant the rights to the government. I'm not trying to troll you. I'm trying to educate you.

You keep coming up with the idea that the government grants us our rights. It doesn't. It never has. Don't read the Constitution. Read the Federalist papers. Read something that was not written by HuffPo or MSNBC.

Come back with something that counters my arguments, please. I'm more than willing to dbate you. But please use facts -- not what you are blowing out you butt.

Let's argue gun control. Argue the efficacy of the TSA. Your reply to my earlier post was claiming Brennan was objecting to going viral. Where was that in the link Amy posted?

I stopped reading the minute you started quoting the Gettysburg address (which is a wonderful speech but in no way binding), and skipped to the end. In order to educate, Jim P., you would have to know something. You don't. Therefore, you cannot educate.

The President is our employee, huh? Since you don't like him, tell him he's fired. Tell him he has been removed from office and must now vacate the White House. And hire the person you like to take his place.

No? But I thought you said he was your employee? Employers have the right to fire employees.

Well, since you can't fire him, tell him he has to repeal Obamacare. No, huh? You mean to say that the President is an insubordinate employee, and you can't do a single thing about it? You have to wait for four years and hope that something better comes along?

Well, Weiner announced last night that he's running for mayor of NYC. So this is really going to be some zany fun.

Hello, Cousin Dave. I just got a piece of email from "him" (more likely his campaign staff). I replied to "Mr. Tweet-My-Weiner" that he has no chance and his career in politics is over, and to kindly never bother me again.

I stand corrected. The constitution of the US requires a special election to replace a congressional representative.

Makes sense. The Constitution originally had the state legislatures choosing the state's Senators, but the people choosing the Representatives.

The President is our employee, huh? Since you don't like him, tell him he's fired.

I did. I voted for the other guy.

But more people wanted him than wanted the other guy, so we the people went with current president.

Tell him he has been removed from office and must now vacate the White House. And hire the person you like to take his place.

In the debate about whether he needs to be removed from office, we the people have hired representatives (see House of) to decide if the time has come to impeach him and a Senate to hear the arguments for removal should the House impeach him.

If we the people are not happy with how our representatives have acted and voted in matters, we are free to replace them.

The President is our employee, huh? Since you don't like him, tell him he's fired. Tell him he has been removed from office and must now vacate the White House. And hire the person you like to take his place. -- Patrick at May 22, 2013 3:19 AM

There is a contract between the citizens and the government of the United States. It is called the Constitution.

The Constitution explains how to fire anyone (impeachment). As I noted earlier, the Constitution was not written with the party system in mind. So now we have a system that has possibly honorable men that have to kowtow to the party for their continued employment in the House or Senate.

So at this time, the House could create a charge of high crimes and misdemeanors against Obama. But the Senate will never convict because of the Democratic control.

The party system also comes between the citizens and the government. If you are in a blue state, the only way to stay in office is by kissing the Democrat party ass. (The same thing happens in the Republican side too.)

There are multiple individual cures for the issue. They include term limits, disbandment of the parties, changing the limit on representatives, or even breaking up the United States into smaller nations.

Right at the moment I see you always saying the government is right and the individual is wrong.

I'm fine if you believe that way. I will do my best in the future to not disabuse you of your thought that the Federal Government equals god.

But when you can't get married or do what you want because it is now illegal, please don't whine here.