When someone vacates public office which do you prefer? Special election or an appointment?
A special election is democracy at its best, to allow the public to decide who should hold office. But it means tax payers money must be spend.
To avoid the use of tax payers money, the Governor could appoint someone. But then that circumvents democracy.
So which do you prefer?
Appointment when there is a Democratic governor, and a special election when there is a Republican governor. I actually like what Massachusetts does...appoints a temporary replacement until a special election after a period of time. This allows for people to organize and run.
It's done according to each state's laws
yeah but if you had a choice?
In New Jersey a State Senator Robert Torrecelli had to leave in disgrace. Jim McGreevey purposefully waited beyond the date when Special Election candidates could sign-up and gave the job to Frank Lautenberg, who was retired. Corey Booker plans to run for 89-year-old Lautenberg's seat.
In Canada there are no appointments. If someone leaves a special election (called a bye-election) is called.
Unless a general election is less than six months away, then the seat is left vacant until the general election is called.
[quote]Appointment when there is a Democratic governor, and a special election when there is a Republican governor.
You can't have your cake and eat it too in this poll, hon. You have to choose. And there is only one logical choice: a special election. Regardless of party, it isn't democratic (little d) for a state governor -- who runs his or her state under state, not federal, law -- to appoint someone to fill a federal position with substantially more influence than his own seat.