REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Tennessee's Colossally Bad Plan to End Senate Primaries

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 3, 2013 10:23
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 436
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, April 3, 2013 8:30 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Hmmmm...
Quote:

You can hear bad ideas almost every day. But only occasionally do you hear a colossally bad, ill-conceived idea, one that leaves you wondering who dreamed it up.

Tennessee state Sen. Frank Nicely, a Republican from Strawberry Plains, has introduced S.B. 471, which would, beginning in 2016, eliminate party primaries for the U.S. Senate in Tennessee. Members of the state Legislature would instead select the nominees. Republican House and Senate caucuses would pick the GOP nominee, and their Democratic counterparts would select their candidate. State Rep. Harry Brooks, R-Knoxville, has also introduced the bill in the Tennessee General Assembly.

My first reaction was to be dismissive. In Washington, as in state legislatures around the country, we often see goofy bills and resolutions introduced, but most thankfully die without any action being taken. But what really got my attention was the news that the Tennessee Senate's State and Local Government Committee voted 7-1 last week to advance the bill. And, no, this isn't an April Fool's joke.

My second reaction was, why stop there? Why not just repeal the 17th Amendment to the Constitution and go back to the way things were before 1913 when voters had no say at all, and state legislatures elected U.S. senators? The 17th Amendment calls for the popular election of U.S. senators but is silent on nominations; indeed, the Constitution is silent on the whole issue of political parties.

As a result, states pretty much have a free hand in determining how nominees are selected. Utah has a two-step process whereby a candidate must clear a 60 percent threshold in the state convention to avoid a statewide primary election; if no candidate receives 60 percent of the vote, the top two candidates move on to a primary. In 2010, this process resulted in incumbent Republican Robert Bennett, one of the ablest U.S. senators to serve in a long time, not even making it onto a primary ballot. By most counts, Bennett would have easily won a primary, but in a Tea Party-packed convention process, he came up short -- his vote in favor of the Troubled Asset Relief Program was his biggest sin.

Virginia has an odd system in which the parties decide whether the state holds a convention or a primary each election cycle. Neither Utah nor Virginia has a process that should be emulated; indeed, with cynicism about government increasing, is this really a good time to cut voters out of the process? Why let state legislators choose who should be the Senate nominee?

What's interesting is that this idea is advancing in Tennessee, not say, Delaware, where GOP voters in 2010, in their infinite wisdom, chose Christine "I am not a witch" O'Donnell to be their Senate standard-bearer, over an infinitely rational Rep. Mike Castle. Again, chalk that up to the halcyon days for the Tea Party movement in 2010, when heretics were to be burned.

But in Tennessee, we see a state with two top-notch senators, Lamar Alexander in the senior position and Bob Corker as the junior senator -- both Republicans and both highly regarded among their colleagues inside and outside the Senate. Corker, a former state commissioner of finance and administration, as well as a former mayor of Chattanooga, was first elected in 2006, defeating two sitting House members to win the GOP nomination and then beating Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr. in a hotly contested general election. In my judgment, it was one of the rare contests where had it gone either way, the state still would have gotten a first-rate senator. One of the stated reasons for switching to the system in which the state Legislature determines Senate nominees is that last year the Democratic nominee against Corker was Mark Clayton, a fringe candidate with fairly exotic views who was denounced by the party. My response to that: It really didn't matter too much who was nominated by the Democrats; he or she wasn't going to beat Corker anyway.

State Democratic Chairman Roy Herron was quoted by columnist Tom Humphrey in Knoxnews.com as saying that Nicely's proposal would "turn back the clock a century or two." Humphrey quoted state GOP Chairman Chris Devaney as saying, "You can always count on Senator Nicely to come up with innovative proposals conservatives can be proud of. This is another step in that direction, and I certainly think it is an interesting idea."

That's an interesting choice of words.

Another one of Nicely's interesting ideas was to be one of four Republican state legislators in Tennessee to sign onto a 2009 lawsuit challenging President Obama to release his birth certificate. Another was his opposition to an effort to make cockfighting a felony. Also interesting, Nicely was deemed "hostile to business" by the Knoxville Chamber of Commerce, something rather odd for a Republican lawmaker.

Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/tennessees-colossa
lly-bad-plan-to-end-senate-primaries/274567/


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 3, 2013 10:23 AM

HERO


I don't really have an opinion on if it's a bad idea or not. States have a variety of ways to select candidates, why not explore something new?

I don't agree with Mr. Snarky, the author, who suggested that we end popular election of US Senators and go back to the way it used to be. To be fair, that system was at least as successful at producing good Senators then the current one. I also note for the record that this method would give Republicans control of Congress. But I think the sound reasoning that led the founders in that direction is an idea whose time has past and there is no reason to go back.

BTW, the sound reasoning was pretty reasonable on it's face. The legislature was divided into two houses. The House of Representatives would give the people of each district a direct voice in national govt. The Senate would give the States representation of their Statewide interests. In the current system all of the Senators have their own individual power bases and supported by the power of incumbancy they can oppose or ignore the will of their states as expressed through the election of a particular governor or locally elected members of the State legislature.

For example, imagine New Jersey represented by one or two moderate Republican Senators curtesy of Chris Christie. Likewise it is likely that PA would have 2 conservative senators and Ohio would have a split of one moderate from each party. In fact, I think you'd see a larger number of moderates then you have now and fewer career politicians.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Kamala Harris for President
Tue, November 5, 2024 09:40 - 638 posts
Multiculturalism
Tue, November 5, 2024 08:22 - 52 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Tue, November 5, 2024 08:04 - 418 posts
More men contract and die from Covid-19
Tue, November 5, 2024 07:57 - 17 posts
Elon Musk
Tue, November 5, 2024 07:52 - 30 posts
All things Space
Tue, November 5, 2024 07:23 - 258 posts
Elections; 2024
Tue, November 5, 2024 06:48 - 4514 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Tue, November 5, 2024 06:17 - 7422 posts
South Korea
Tue, November 5, 2024 05:00 - 4 posts
Worst poll yet!
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:43 - 19 posts
Poll Shows Americans' Massive Disapproval Of Both Parties: "Now It's Just An Oligarchy"
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:36 - 24 posts
New CNN Poll Raises Eyebrows
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:32 - 10 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL