Yes, Blagojevich is a bonehead for trying to auction off a senate seat, but don't confuse one crisis with a systemic problem.  I don't believe that many other Governors auction off senate seats in a corrupt manner.  For obvious reasons, in the interests of career self-preservation, if something like this gets out its game over.  Governor's only appoint a senator until the next Federal general election, when a special election is held.  So the very maximum an appointed Senator can serve is 2 years, but often its for much less time.  Being appointed is actually the hard road, because you end up having to face the voters twice in a 2-4 year period, much more often than once every 6 years.  The Senate was always intended to be a more stable, rational, deliberative body to counteract the knee-jerk passions and reactions of the House.  In contrast to House special elections in a small district, state-wide special elections are costly on the state/local govts and are logistically difficult to schedule and carry out.  Thus, appointing Senators to fill vacancies provides continuity before a special election can be held in a cost-effective manner at the same time as other Federal elections.

I have to admit that after thinking about this over the last decade or so, I've changed my views on policial family legacies.  By and large, I now think that political dynasties are not good for the country.  Broadening the diversity of backgrounds and people in elective office is good, decades of Clintons, Bushes, Doles, Kennedys, etc., gets stale.  The universe of good ideas are not resident solely in 4 families in a country of 300 million.  

However, with that said, I think that Caroline Kennedy is geting a bad rap that she's not experienced.  This is coming from the same folks who voted for Sara Palin a month ago.  Nuff'ced.  I think we have to break out of the mindset that the only way you are stamped 'qualified' to run for office is to be a career politician who has been in office for year after year.  This logic incorrectly ignores the tradition of the funding fathers of citizen-legislators, and that life experience is meaningless.  Maybe if we had some soccer moms, entrepreneurs, teachers, or ex-military personnel in Congress we wouldn't have a hyper-partisan Congress that can't get anything done.  

especially for a Senate seat that is up for re-election in two years.

1. The costs associated with running a new election would be tens of millions of dollars for New York state.  For a state that's running a billion + dollar short-fall I can imagine better uses of the money right now.  

2. The Governor is accountable for who he or she selects -- or the methods that they use.  In Blago's case, he's going to prison (in all likelihood).  In Frank Murkowski's case, nepotism cost him his job in Alaska.  

3. Place-holder Senators still have to prove themselves -- their odds of re-election are about 50-50 -- not as good as an incumbent.

4. The Governor is not selecting a president -- he is selecting a junior Senator for a political body that's made up of 100 other people.

The alternatives seem to be:

1. Kick it to the state legislatures as it was back before 1913.  This resulted in states not having representation in the Senate for extended periods because of grid-lock in state legislators over the "right" pick.

2. Put it up for popular vote in a highly partisan, low-turnout contest that costs tax-payers a lot of money, and still results in not having representation in the Senate for months on end (do we also have a party primary, or do you leave the power up to party bosses to select the nominee? If the latter, in cases where one party dominates we would effectively kick the power of selection from an elected representative to an unelected party leader.  Seems like that option leave the door open for corruption as well).

The current system isn't ideal, but I don't see any better alternatives.

the races in which celebrity has trumped anything else, I think that Caroline Kennedy is a refreshingly good opportunity.  We've (voters around the country, not necessarily all of us here) given a pass on the following:

1) Let an actor become a pretty much do-nothing governor (I am ashamed I voted for the first time he ran) and then later president (Reagan);

2) Let another actor become a US Senator (Murphy);

3) Let a wrestler (Ventura) became a governor of MN;

4) Let a body builder (Arnold) steal the governorship from a Dem who did absolutely nothing wrong (but wasn't "likeable enough" and was hammered by the perfect storm of Rovian politica and the Enronians;

5) We are fine with a comedian (albeit one I like, who can give a good political speech and gets the issues) is positioned to win (thank God) the US Senate race in MN);

6) We let a do-nothing son of a football coach become Gov of Virginia (Allen).

I'm not meaning to get argumentative in response to what may be your last post (I sincerely honor your work here at RK).  But I don't think that Caroline Kennedy is a problem.  She's not only well informed, but a lawyer; a policy wonk, of sorts; an author; and a constitutional expert.  I'd be happy to have her as a Senator.  And, frankly, present company excepted, most of the noise has come from Republicans and DLC Dems.

It would be nice if we lived in a perfect world where the little guy who works hard and builds a long, strong record, always wins.  But that's unfortunately not the world we live in.  There are lots of celebs who actually do really understand complex issues.  Better them than an office-stealing gubernator now sitting in the highest office in CA or a wrestler who seemed to think running a state was no more difficult than a WWF match/show.

Isn't that for the people to decide?  I'm sure she is all of those things.  But it should always be up to the people to decide.

The bottom line is this.  People aren't electing their Senators.  I find it astonishing that people so easily ignore when votes aren't counted - when primaries don't matter (like in Florida).  And when Senators are chosen by the few, not the many.

You don't realize how close we have come, and will come again, to a government that is fascist in nature and leaders - perhaps we should call them dictators - chosen by other dictators.

It is a crises when Democratic values are ignored.  There was a comment that "special elections are expensive".  Freedom and democracy isn't free.  It comes at a cost.  But ultimately, it is worth that cost.  The alternative is something that none of us could live with.

that special election appointments for vacant Senate seats have pushed the U.S. towards fascism.  

The practice has been in place now since 1914 too, so it's not like there's a shortage of data points.

I'd much more concerned about federal consolidation within the Executive branch -- or via a military coup.

If people don't like any of the Governors picks, then they'll have a chance to toss the person aside in two years.  Happens 50 percent of the time -- even with the advantages of incumbency.  So the system seems to work.

When we talk about "Democratic" values too, the Framers didn't trust pure democracy.  They created a system of indirect representation -- in particular for Senate seats.  Up until 1914 the selection process was done via state legislatures -- not by direct election.  Once again, I hear your concerns, but I think there are better ways to defend public freedoms and civil liberties than fixating on the vacancy appointment process for Senate seats.

Exactly.  And what we have today is our own House of Lords.  The Senate is not a race of ideas.  Except in rare occasions (Jim Webb, Tester, etc) it is a money race.  And the top donors to Senators are corporations so the plurality normally loses in this race.

The Senate is the least democratic body we have which is exactly why I would like to see, at a minimum, every Senate seat up for election as opposed to appointment.

The only negative thing I have heard so far to electing instead of appointing Senators is the cost and time needed to hold an election.  We send soldiers to shed blood and some go and die to protect democracy.  The least we can do is hold an election.

And I hate to say this about the framers of our government, but they were not perfect.  That is why we have amendments to the Constitution.  It is our duty to form a "more perfect union" and in my view having one man appoint someone to the second most powerful body in our nation is less than perfect.

As far as "evidence" of fascism, perhaps a better word is "corporatism" in which corporate interests control the government.  Fascism comes in many forms and doesn't convey what I want to convey.  I would say that corporatism could be a form of fascism.  

Do you agree or disagree that corporations have great influence and in some cases direct control over the United States Senate?  Do you agree or disagree that campaign finance laws (or lack of) contribute directly to undo corporate influence over our government?

1. Appointment of Senators.  I think the 17th amendment was a good modification to the Constitution -- a measure which also includes for vacancy appointments by governors.  The vacancy appointment is not permanent since the seats will be up for election -- in the current cases within two years.  

The evidence from past vacancy appointments show that these seats usually flip in 50 percent of the cases -- either in a primary battle or in the general election -- so it's no gimme.  There's more accountability with a vacancy appointment then there is with most incumbents (if we measure accountability on the basis of turnover).

2. Corporate influence is a huge factor in the current election system.  I see this as a more fundamental issue than vacancy appointments.  I'd like to see PAC's eliminated, and the max. donation threshold lowered.  In order for a candidate to enjoy an advantage in dollars he or she would need to build a campaign on the backs of small donors, which in turn would reflect a broader range and balance of political interests (i.e. it would create political leadership that more closely reflects a broad range of political interests; one that is more democratic).  

3. I agree with the corporatism designation instead of fascism.  Fascism typically goes hand in hand with big business players.  However, with fascism the big business players are usually subordinate to the political leadership.  

Under fascist rule, the power of elections lose their force, not because seats are purchased, but because the central political authorities control the political process.  I guess the big money players play along in this arrangement because, at least for short periods of time, they make out very well.  

We don't have that right now.  The Constitution has been abused in recent years, but we still have transitions of power, and political leadership can still be given the boot through peaceful means when public pressure builds against the leadership.

In the distant past, during the Gilded Age through to the Great Depression -- big money players owned the political leadership.  In recent years I think we've had something closer to the Gilded Age arrangement (e.g. going back to the Nixon era when people like Howard Hughes helped him purchase the presidency).  I could see an argument for your corporatism designation, but I think fascism is an overstatement about what we currently have -- not even close, fortunately.

Your main concern seems to be that the current political system isn't sufficiently representative -- that it serves the interests of a few over the many.  This is something that I agree with.  I don't look at the vacancy appointment issue as the fundamental problem.  The fundamental problem is the one that you hit on in terms of campaign finance.  Junior senators don't wield enough influence to dictate political outcomes in the Senate, so I lose more sleep over the way that elections are run generally, than the way that Senate and House seats are filled during a vacancy.

"Your main concern seems to be that the current political system isn't sufficiently representative -- that it serves the interests of a few over the many.  This is something that I agree with."

Thanks for the comprehensive response.  I agree that in the scheme of things, campaign finance reform and ethics reforms are more important than appointments since there are far fewer appointed than elected senators.

I'll miss these discussions. You won't find quality discussions like this anywhere else.  There are some good threads on Kos, but it is too popular for my taste - and too many cooks spoil the soup.

Happy Holidays everyone!  I hope Santa decides to keep RK alive another year.