The real problem with Caroline Kennedy and the Senate

The idea that Caroline Kennedy might be appointed to the Senate has its supporters and its detractors. But surely her merits are beside the point.

Isn't the real issue the merits of appointment against election?

Given the commitment of Americans to popular and direct democracy, it is always a bit baffling to a Brit that they would choose to fill Senate vacancies by appointment.

Is Caroline Kennedy suitable? How can one possibly tell? Hillary Clinton was, as Al Sharpton points out, the beneficiary of dynastic politics. And so was Robert Kennedy. But they both had their mettle tested. They both had to show they could handle the electorate.

Caroline Kennedy is, by all accounts, intelligent, cool and personable. That is not the same as being qualified to be Senator. And being qualified to be Senator is not the same as being a good Senator.

Surely the Blagowhatshisname scandal shows that it is way past time to end these appointments. They are an invitation to corruption and are profoundly antidemocratic.

Not my business, I know, but I just thought I'd say.

Comments

[Ian Thorpe]

Nepotism in New York (and doen't it appear as if the senate seat for Caroline was the price of Uncle Teddy's endorsement?), Blagojevich blagging a million dollars for a vacant senate seat in Illinois. Is this the change you can believe in promised by The Obamessiah?

It is significant is it not that when George W Bush said he did not know what was going on everybody believed him.

[Michael Moran]

I think the biggest problem with her is the chilling resemblence to the new slimline ex-Duchess of York.

Nepotism isn't a uniquely american problem: Isn't Michael Martin planning to cede his seat in that little known Rottten Borough Glasgow to his son?

[Chris]

"Nepotism in New York (and doen't it appear as if the senate seat for Caroline was the price of Uncle Teddy's endorsement?), Blagojevich blagging a million dollars for a vacant senate seat in Illinois. Is this the change you can believe in promised by The Obamessiah?"

Ian, when Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama, the now resigned governor Spitzer of New York was a Clinton supporter, so you're being overly conspiritorial.

Also, Blagojevic did offer Obama's camp the chance to 'buy' the Illinois senate seat for their preferred candidate and they refused. Obama and the Democratic party aren't the exact same thing.

[JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO]

Daniel, until 1913, the Senate was entirely an appointed body.

The U.S. government was largely based on the British constitution of the time – greatly admired by many of the Founders - with the Senate having the role of the House of Lords, hardly a democratic model.

(Indeed, the president represented the king in the original scheme, with a number of the Founders favoring a lifetime appointment or a ten-year term. As it was, the Electoral College concept - taken from old systems like the election of the Holy Roman Emperor - made him not directly elected by the popular vote. In the early days the popular vote didn't even matter.

The College vote did - by a small group of elites - the college not having to conform to popular sentiment at all – or what there was of it since in a place like Virginia about one percent of the population had the franchise. Indeed, technically this remains true today, although the College would never dare deliberately overturn the popular vote. Still, we get minority presidents frequently because of the winner-take-all element in the state-by-state votes.)

The anti-democratic Senate is the body with the real power. Having to approve every major presidential appointment and treaty negotiated as well as all legislation from the “People’s House” or the president, the Senate can virtually emasculate an elected president.

Even with election today, the Senate remains highly anti-democratic.

It is elected in a staggered fashion, one-third every two years, so that its basic composition cannot be changed in any one election. Public concern or burning issues largely don’t effect it.

The requirement for a super-majority (60%) to overcome a filibuster truly means the Senate does not work with normal democratic rules under any of its deliberations.

The fact that the Vice-President is given the role of tie-breaker in the Senate - his only genuine Constitutional duty - is also anti-democratic because, as you know, the silly office of Vice-president is filled by selection of a presidential candidate.

You cannot vote separately for President and Vice-president, although, in the early Republic, Electors could, and sometimes Vice-presidential candidates wound up as President. In the original thinking, the Vice-president really does represent something like the Prince of Wales, a king in waiting, although his role as prince-in-waiting ends with the next election.

The Senate’s bizarre two seats for every state - the Great Compromise protecting the interests of under-populated slave states - means today that one of the Senators from California "represents" sixteen million people. At the same time, one of the Senators from New Hampshire represents about three hundred and fifty thousand - very democratic, especially when you consider the Senate’s immense power.

Because Senators from big states today cannot possibly shake hands with all their constituents, even if that's all they did for six years, then advertising and marketing play a key role in elections.

It is estimated a Senator on average spends two-thirds of his/her time in office collecting and soliciting campaign money. Once the money is received, the quid pro quo is access by lobbyists for the next six years. Again, very democratic.

The Founders, most of them, did not trust or even like the idea of democracy. The word had the connotation among members of the Constitutional Convention similar to “communism” in 1950s America. That’s why there are all the extremely conservative designs in the Constitution, with the Constitution being by design an immensely difficult thing to alter.

The sense of democracy you feel in America today comes only after more than two hundred years of rebellions, and crises gradually making America a fairly democratic place. But the nature of the Senate – its powers, manner of election, and financing - provides the real measure of how far removed even today America remains from democracy.

Colin Powell couldn’t have been more wrong when he answered the French at the U.N., in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, that America was the world’s oldest democracy.

[John W Meadows]

A dear old lady from Massachusetts I was having a discussion with a while ago I think sums it up.
When I commented I thought that the shabby record of Ted Kennedy as a womaniser and a raging lefty made him not my choice for a Senator she replied.
You are quite correct in what you say,but he is a Kennedy.
You think we do not have a Royal family!!

[Michael Haven]

When Caroline Kennedy, (what was her married name?) endorsed Barrack Obama it was clear to many of us who follow East Coast politics that Hillary would never become first female PODUS, that honor was being held in trust for HRH Caroline of Camelot. Appoint Hillary to State, Appoint HRH Caroline to Senate. Run one re-election campaign and pray Obama is as competent as advertised.

[oldasiahand]

Nepotism and cronyism are as American as apple pie. Nowhere is the gap between the reality and the public relations persona so large.

[Jim Wills]

I object to the statement by the writer Finkelstein "Given the commitment of Americans to popular and direct democracy," He assumes this is a truth. America is not a democracy for the people by the people. The public only vote to elect politicians and not to approve or reject legislation as it is generated by the politicians. Appointments are the means that outside groups use to control the political power base. A typical non democratic process which further emphasizes the need for political change in order to create a true democratic process in modern America.

[jonny mac]

it amazes me how right-wingers see conspiracies everywhere as if the past 8 years of bush didn't see it's overload of machiavellian-type cronyism in it's appointments. At any rate, for all you Obama haters and sarcasticians out there...the dude hasn't even taken office yet....too bad you all didn't apply this proactive cynical-skepticism with the current idiot who HAS BEEN in office the past 8 years. For those of you that don't like Obama, or the Kennedy's for that matter, just say so....don't use hyperbole, sarcasm, and guilt by association to make your non-logic based arguments...do you think that it's possible that perhaps after her father and brother's tragic deaths,(how many of YOU have gone through the same?) that she just might want to TRY and benefit her fellowman by trying her hand at politics?....or that maybe she....like bush W. wants to confront the ghosts of past family errors and benefit her fellow citizens at the same time by running for office. Is it perhaps a bit possible that she actually felt Obama was a better choice than Hillary, and honestly gave her endorsement of Obama, not expecting quid-pro-quo?.....Besides upstate NY (a hell-hole) gave Hillary the same difficulties at first, and she survived....so let's just wait and see.

[George]

The historical explanations of JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO are knowledgable and intelligent, yet wrong in one point: The US Senate as he points out used to be appointed, not elected, so senators represented their state governments, which are duely elected, imitation of the House of Lords having been a issue at best.

[Otis Boone II]

Given the state of American politics, where we have to vote for EVERY public office, from water board committee members to President, being spared an election is a good thing.

We have elections at least every 2 years for the US House, plus our Governors and state legislators, water board members, transport board members, school boards, parks and recreation, fire and police boards, court judges, and bless God if I can remember anything else. In addition to that, if a member of the US House vacates his/her seat, we hold a special election (by-election in your system) just to fill the seat (unless it is within 6 months of the actual election).

Then we have the the Primary elections, where the parties vote for their candidates, then the general election where everyone can vote for whomever.

To be honest, I'm sick of direct democracy. I don't care who is on the water board, just keep the clean water coming and the sewage going. I think Governors, mayors and Presidents are more than capable of appointing replacements, especially since we get to vote him/her in or out of the Senate seat two (2) years after the appointment.

How I would love to live in a Parliamentary democracy. You Brits, Canucks, Kiwis and Aussies have it made - vote for your MP, and that's it. Lucky Commonwealthers.

[etirpsha]

Alas, Mr. Chuckman has made a succession of serious errors in an overly simplistic "analysis" of American history and the American democratic experience (or rather republicanism), and their causation. This is not so terrible, for sadly, most Americans lack an understanding of their own history and form of government; many possessing less knowledge than those in foreign lands.

[Ghalib]

Finally an American politician that Asian-Americans can warm to. A beautiful talented woman from the powerful ruling ethnic majority. You rock, ma'am !!

[Yeta]

You're right, it's not your business...

[Marc]

Amazing, all these Canadians who post to the Times and seem to think they're experts on US history and politics. There are so many errors and misconceptions in John Chuckman's post that it's not possible to list them all The USA is a confederation. Much like Canada. The Senate's origin has nothing to do with representation of slave states-- it has to do with the federal nature of the US. (The 3/5 compromise, which affected the House, was slavery-based.) Each state is a quasi-sovereign entity. All ratified the Constitution separately, and the smaller states wanted some assurance of continued sovereignty. That was the reason for the Senate, along with having a non-democratic body to serve as a check on elected officials' short-term outlook and tendency to pander. Basically, those were the same reasons for the electoral college. The concept and implementation of democracy have evolved, and neither the UK (nor Canada), nor France, was in any modern sense democratic at the time the US Constitution was ratified. The Electors of the Holy Roman Empire were hereditary, and bore no resemblance to the US electors, who have always been at least the appointees of democratically elected officials.

Of course, like most of the freethinking posters here, who just happen to all think the same thing, Mr. Chuckman's point is "America bad."

[Meyer Culper]

She's almost as pretty as Sarah Palin if that's anything to go by. But it didn't do McCain any good.

[Brian]

We'll ignore the fact that Mr. Chuckman is another Canadian who gleefully finds fault in America's political evolution. We'll also ignore his succession of factual errots. Most silly is his dismissal of the two senator per state arrangment as "bizarre" and the extremely federal nature of the US.

[Rui Duarte]

Voters only get to choose from the available candidades, anyway; and whatever candidates there are it is the party machines that decide. So why all the fuss?

[Jim Harris]

It would be hard to find a system worse than "true" democracy (otherwise known as mob rule), where those voting have the power to take wealth from others and grant it to themselves thus destroying the incentive for the productive members of the society to take the risks and spend the extra blood, sweat and tears to rise above the average and provide more for themselves and their families. The American (USA) political system is an attempt, so far relatively successful, to allow the citizens the greatest degree of democracy without their being allowed to destroy the viability of the society. Those on the left would have the unatainable goal of everyone being above average while those on the far right would have a dog-eat-dog world. Unfortunatly people in extreme groups are the people who most often vote. The "leave me alone and I'll take care of myself" people dislike politics and often don't vote. Time will tell if our messy system of politics can contain the radical views of the special interest groups. If politicians are forced by the people to adhere to the restraits of the constitution it just might continue to work.

[Rise Briggs]

Why not give a Senate seat to Barbra Streisand, Oprah Winfrey, and maybe Clint Eastwood? This is absolutely ridiculous!!! I want senators that can help steer the U.S. out of this catastrophic mess - NOT some celebrity that thinks she's entitled because she has the Kennedy name.

[matmat]

Since when are US citizens used to direct democracy? And the UK?

- Gordon Brown was nominated/appointed
- US Presidents are not elected by popular/direct democracy. Remember Bush's election in 2004?

[Matthew]

Daniel must have been living under a rock. The British equivalent of the Senate is the House of Lords, where every single member is an appointee. Kennedy, by comparison will have to fight an election before long.

[Steve Moss]

The big attraction of Caroline to NY Democrats seems to be missing here. Her appointment is only good until the next general election in 2010 at which time she would have to be re-relected for the remaining part of Clintons term. She would then have to stand again in 2012. So that is two full fledge Senate Campaigns in 2 years The other Senator was just re-elected so he stands again in 2014, thus three Senatorial elections in four years. What Kenedy brings is the ability to raise enough money for her own 2 campaings without dipping into the funds of the Democratic Party of NY. That is a very big plus. Virtually none of the alternative appointees have that ability. Remeber the first rule of understanding US politics is to folllow the money.

[Lisa E.]

As a Native American I take strong exception to the notion of "the commitment of Americans to popular and direct democracy". Were this indeed fact, my people would not continue to exist under systematic apartheid many living in 3rd World conditions in their own country. Another point: Gore won the Popular Vote in 2000 and it did not put him in the White House.

[Huntington W.]

Staggered elections give stability to the system and allow changes in society to make it to government level if profound and long-lasting enough. Good idea.

Proportional representation has its advantages, but it is not the only method of election, not necessarily the best and far from problem-free.

Those advocating it might consider applying it to the UN or the EU for example.

[Joe Black]

Gov. Patterson better worry about blowback on his own career should he make an "uninformed" decision.

[DeclinetoState]

MATMAT posted: "Since when are US citizens used to direct democracy? And the UK?

"- Gordon Brown was nominated/appointed
"- US Presidents are not elected by popular/direct democracy. Remember Bush's election in 2004?"

MATMAT probably means 2000, not 2004. Given the rampant voter fraud (e.g., cigarettes allegedly given to the homeless in exchange for votes for Gore in Wisconsin) that Democrats were believed to have committed, probably a majority of legitimate voters supported Bush in Y2K.

I wouldn't be surprised if only a slim plurality, perhaps even a minority, of all voters supported Obama this year. With fraudulent voter registration and liberal early voting rules, as well as volunteer (and probably thus poorly trained) poll-workers verifying ID's, it's not hard to imagine hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes being cast for Obama. Given that he's from Illinois, a state with a long history of rigged elections ("Vote early and often"), I'd actually be shocked if that wasn't in fact the case.

At least the Electoral College helps to isolate the fraud. An illegally cast and counted vote in Illinois won't cancel out a legally cast and counted vote in Kansas, for instance.

[Ron Roberson]

Way to go, Daniel! I'm from the American West and absolutely agree with you on this one. We here in Wyoming do not follow the same doctrine as the Wahingtonian liberals!

[Clifford Garrison]

As a concerned natural born citizen of The United States; Mr. Finkelstein, in my opinion, is very correct in his opinion that the Senate seat which, Caroline Kennedy seeks, should be filled not by appointment but, by election. Further, just because someone is a decedent of a particular family doesn't qualify them for public office. Unfortunately there are those still in public office that should have been removed long ago but, there are people who were too lazy to vote or to investigate how those in office voted and/or conducted themselves. Further, they did not read nor study the United States Constitution nor did they learn how the government works in a civics class. Far too many don't even know who their Senator or Representative is nor who the judges are in the Supreme Court. Many can't even tell you who the tpresident or vice president is at any given time. Too many think that the president writes the tax laws, controls the economy, and declares war. The truth is, The House of Representatives writes and introduces the tax laws and introduces legislation as to what the money is spent on. The Congress (both Senate and House) declare war. It's the president's job to see that those laws and such legislation are carried out. The President has no control of what happens with the economy, that is controlled by the people and their spending or saving actions and the actions of the suppliers of goods and services.

[sam]

We didn't even elect our prime minister.

[Bob]

And the Freak-Show USA goes on...

[Tamara L]

There should be no suprise here. In fact, America has never been based on popular and direct democracy. The Electoral College was invented to ensure that the masses not get too closely involved in the election process. The Senate was conceived as a way to secure the upper hand for the aristocracy.

Please do not be fooled by the trappings of democracy in the American nation. These appointments are evidence of yet another way in which America ensures votes - money. If they were to have a special election for the Clinton seat (or the Obama seat) it would cost money. So, they rely, instead, on an incumbent governor, rather than the people. And, as we have seen with both Illinois and New York, when we try to save money, others step in and offer money or the illusion of money, to gain the seat.

Shame on America. (This comes from a homegrown American, temporarily planted in Continental Europe.)

[Jeff Green]

The USA is NOT a democracy!
It is a Representative Republic!
Something our Canadian friends seem to forget.

[Chris]

The United States is a "representative democracy". The founders were well aware that allowing the masses to vote on something provides no protection for those in a minority. However, many states now have "direct democracy" in some areas, allowing citizens to directly vote on ballots - gay marriage being one prominent example.

[Traci]

I may have missed this in the other comments, but money is, unfortunately, the real reason behind the appointment system. Our electoral system, as cumbersome and corrupt as it has become, requires that it now costs MILLIONS to hold a simple one-off election. I am talking of actually HOLDING the election, NOT of the costs of a campaign; that costs many more millions but the taxpayers are not required to pay that quite so directly...indirectly we all pay. It undermines our entire democracy.

[James O'Sullivan]

As a New Yorker, let me say that I completely agree with you, whether it's your business or not. She may be a wonderful person, and may win my vote if she asks me for it. But she should have to ask.

[Tony]

Lisa E:

I too am a Native American, and I take strong exception to your own comment. While we clearly face challenges (and are all but forgotten by BOTH political parties as a constituency), I strongly disagree that Natives are "under systematic apartheid", as you wrote...

If you look at what happened under apartheid in South Africa, you will see government policies that blatantly kept black people down. While this happened to us in the 18th/19th centuries, it just isn't the case today.

Many tribes, including my own, have been given special benefits that non-Natives don't have (e.g. operating casinos), and so my tribe has benefited greatly and has provided many services (e.g. health care, scholarships, etc.) to its people.

Other tribes remain on reservations where there is, sadly, little hope. However, being forgotten is NOT the same as being kept down... The problems are far more complicated than that...

[ana Pereira]

Jim Wiils has the right to his own opinions but not to
his own set of facts. He is wrong.Finkelstein is right.
The US is by and large a direct democracy. That's why we in California have some trouble with proposition 8 . The law was proposed by ordinary citizens who took it to ballot . It was subsquently voted on by the people and if it is found to be constitutional it becomes law. Legislation directly by the people is a California constitutional right. In other states referenda take place all the time, orchestrated directly by the people without any recourse to professional politicians.

[Charles J.]

The prospect of Caroline Kennedy actually being appointed to the vacate Junior Senator seat in New York is nothing new. It is a rather common occurrence; the furor is Illinois not withstanding. New Yorkers are very accepting of the Kennedy's and this appointment in itself remains quite intriguing. It will certainly bring even more prestige the Senate and bring tremendous recognition to New York State.

Charles J.

convergencerelevantstuff.org/

[JT]

The Kennedy family is one of degenerates. Caroline is not qualified to lead New York, and I don't believe that any of the Kennedys merit their employment in government, based on their chronic womanizing and general disregard for the law. If one comes along who does inspire a sense of integrity, I would gladly support his or her candidacy.

[Ian]

Special elections in the United States, especially state wide high profile elections, cost millions of dollars to run. Also, they cost the candidates millions as well (up to 60 million or more depending on the state). Appointments to fill out the term of a sitting senator who has died or who has resigned is a way to fill the seat with someone, so that the public has a senator and more important their staff (who advocate on their constituents behalf in federal matters and seek funding for projects, like highways and sewers in the state) who can provide services until the next statewide election is possible.

Is it perfect, no, but it isn't the end of the world to have an appointed senator for two years.

[rick]

How on earth does this woman deserve such privileged position.
She has done nothing.

[wxalexander]

If Mr Chuckman has a problem with the US senate and the 2 senators rule how does he explain the seat distribution of the current Canadian Senate with 3? seats going to PEI, population 100,000 and 5 to BC, population 2.5 million?. Also the dyed in the wool opposition to changing this mess because it would mean altering the "Constitution". And of course the Canadian seats are appointed by the Prime Minister in power, meaning most are Liberals and do not represent the political distribution in the country. And of course, they serve until they are 75 even if "serve" means one appearance each year and life down in Mexico for the rest of the time or at least the winter while they collect $85,000 for their one appearance.

[Edward Nobel Bisamunyu]

It is a democratic election so Caroline has as much right to run as anybody else. It is up to the voters - for or against her - to determine their future Senator and not up to editorial opinions and the sour-graped views of those who have seen their candidates lose the election to a Caroline-supported Barack Obama.

[J. Granger]

John,

Excellent exposition on the undemocratic character of the U.S. Constitution. No work sums this up better than Robert Dahl's How Democratic is the American Constitution? I have been using this work in my university course. The students who are intelligent enough to grasp the profundity of Dahl's analysis are often shocked.

Yet there is more. Students are also shocked at the role of the U.S. (federal) Supreme Court. This is another highly undemocratic institution.

[Mario]

I believe that having a popularly elected lower house and a popularly elected president with broad executive powers one can definitely overlook this less democratic aspect of the senate. I mean... it's not like she never gonna have to run for elections in the future...

[Glenn T.]

John in Toronto - What British Constitution?
Lisa E. - Gore was one of several candidates who have won the popular vote and lost the Presidency because the Constitution was set up to force such candidates to consider and appeal to a broad spectrum of the states and regions. Otherwise, now one need only appeal to California and the eastern cities. And then no one would ever need listen to "your people" at all. As someone whose grandchildren are as Native American as most on the East Coast who claim that distinction, I would find that sad.
America is a representative, constitutional, democracy. It does not have the homogeneity of an Iceland or Japan and never did, therefore the structure (written down and agreed to) attempts to empower coalitions and lets small groups impede "progress". That's on purpose, not some accident that the infinitely wise Solons of today have caught. The founders also distrusted centralized power (for damn good reason given their experience with old Europe) and put in checks and balances such as the Congress/Executive/Court conflicts.
It's the worst possible system, except for everything else that's been tried.

[Parahandy]

Americans are hurt to the core when a Canadian puts his head about the horizon to make any comment about the USA. If you think that the US has a democracy, fine. From where I stand it is far from being that, they all need the money to win electons, and to do so they have to pander to the wishes and aspirations of those that pay them the most. these are usually well funded lobby groups! Once they are elected do they give a hoot for those that elected them? No! No!!

[Mladen M]

Most honest thing would be to appoint now someone who is not going to run in two years. That way Ms Kennedy can take on Mr Cuomo in primaries and winner can take on Mr Giuliani or Mr Bloomberg.

Of course, appointed person should be more then seat heater. So, considering dire state of economy, how about Mr Paul Krugman, winner of Nobel Prize in economics...

[Kevin]

On the other hand, Blagojevich was also elected by the people.

Everyone in office is susceptible to corruption no matter who puts them there.

[Chris]

When I was younger and even more stupid than I am now, I used to think Labour was wrong in being so fundamentally opposed to the House of Lords. With this proposed appointment, now I understand how wrong I was.

[Hugh]

'profoundly antidemocratic'

Coming from a country that doesn't elect its upper house, doesn't elect its head of state, has no written constitution, whose parliament delegates power to European authorities without referring to the people and whose judiciary is appointed in secret (notwithstanding that the judiciary determines state policy through the Human Rights Act), don't you think you are on rather weak ground?

I am certainly no fan of the Kennedy clan, who seem to think that they have some divine right to a position in the House of Representatives and or the Senate without regard to individual merit, but an appointment by the State Governor to a part-term of office sounds like an emminently practical solution with some basis in constitutional theory. The same is used in Australia, where if a senate position becomes vacant the State appoints a replacement. Like the US, the Senate in Australia is (in theory at least) a house for representation of the States. To that extent an appointment by a State representative makes sense.

[dan francis]

My blog lays out my views on the Kennedy "non-campaign, campaign."

In the UK, from which my heritage comes from (dating back to my great, great, great, great, great grandfather, Solomon Silkwood, Sr. (b. 1759) frees me up to say that membership of the UK House of Lords was once a right of birth to hereditary peers, but following a series of reforms the House now consists almost entirely of appointed members.

We in the U.S. practice that, too. Husband dies, wife gets seat; father retires, son or daughter gets seat; etc., yada, yada.

The mess in Illinois is pretty low, but hey, we here in New York may top that yet with this Kennedy "non-campaign, campaign."

BTW: I told Gov. Paterson and Sen. Clinton that I was interested and available and qualified, etc. No word yet - um, I wonder why?

[Chris Stockton]

Don't you rember Mr Smith goes to Washington? Appointees can do the unexpected (according to Hollywood anyway)!

[dan francis]

My blog referenced above is http://www.danzview.blogspot.com

Enjoy.

[larry]

My favorite comment above is the statement that Caroline Kennedy is a womanizer. And, the appointment of a replacement senator immediately, with an election to follow at the next general election, is the method almost all US states have chosen. I don't understand the emphasis on Caroline Kennedy. A replacement for Senator Biden has already been appointed in Delaware. That's routine. An election to complete Biden's term will be held in 2010, just as there will be an election in New York.

[Bruce L. Northwood]

What an arrogant sense of entitlement.

[Mike in Atlanta]

For Pete's sake, people. The United States is not a democracy, or a representative democracy or any other type of democracy. It is a federal republic, a f-e-d-e-r-a-l r-e-p-u-b-l-i-c. The founders of the country delibately avoided direct democracy as much as possible because every example they saw of that kind of government quickly devolved into anarchy.

Therefore, the Senate was set up to be the deliberate, cool-headed body with lots of reasoned debating of issues, and the House is the rough-and-tumble people's body. And yes, the Senate makes all states equal, while the House gives weight to more populous states. Had the two houses not been set up this way, the states would have never ratified the Constitution.

Having just fought to free themselves of one tyrant (although George III wasn't all that bad, in hindsight), the founders were determined to make it difficult for a homegrown tyrant to take over the U.S. Therefore, the federal governmnent is by design a confrontational, combative, ponderous, slow-moving thing, with three branches all vying to be top dog (the checks and balances).

If the founders would be aghast at anything about today's U.S. government, it would be the extent to which the states have ceded power to the central government. It was never intented to be this way. Most of the power was to reside with the states. If you read the document, it says that any powers not specifically given to the federal government automatically revert to the states. States are soverign unto themselves and have their govenments, their heads of state, their own budgets, their own powers of taxation, their own police forces and their own military units (the National Guard and in some cases militias).

And, by the way, to the foreigners whose favorite hobby is taking cheap shots at the U.S., let me say: If the U.S. hadn't been so successful for so long, you'd spend your time critizing some other country.

[D.G.]

This column is basically correct except that holding a special election when the senate term has only a small amount of time left would be impractical.

Mr. Chuckman. Your post is very long indeed, but forwards some unreasonable ideas of ideological purity and contains some basic errors including the assumption that the American founders were somehow of one mind on really any issue, and the rather bizarre reference to Britain's "constitution", which I'm quite sure we don't actually have.

It is absurd to say that because the United States political system doesn't provide exactly proportional representation for all states that it is somehow not a democracy. By that standard there is barely a hint of democracy anywhere in the world. The U.K. for instance provides over representation for Scotland and Japan for rural areas.

Frankly, such exact representation is likely not even desirable as it could lead to significant geographic power disparity.

[Scott Benowitz]

The procedures vary from state to state as to how to fill vacancies in elected offices when they arise- An aspect of this that neither our domestic press here nor what I've read in foreign newspapers so far seems to be ignoring entirely this year is how STATE governors are still ever in a position to appoint anyone to fill a seat in a FEDERAL office (i.e., one of the two the U.S. Senate seats from New York State in this example) in the 21st century- This precisely the exact reverse order of the hierarchy of authority and the distribution of powers that the U.S. government is (in theory) supposed to be based upon-

[Star o' Rabbie Burns]

Caroline Kennedy for the New York senate seat.

Shouldn't she be waiting to take over Uncle Teddy's - the one her father used to have?

If you're going to have hereditary succession, succeed to the right seat.

JOHN CHUCKMAN and GEORGE ... Canadian senators are appointed. American senators have always been elected; at first by the state legislatures (NOT the governors) and then, from 1913, by the citizens.

[Marek]

The Americans ain't got de logic, man.

Dat's why we's got dem outwitted.

[bundangbear]

All seats should be elected, and this is clearly a flaw in the American political system, but it is especially rich coming from its UK source which allows such nonsense as the House of Lords to continue. Hereditary leadership is ALWAYS wrong!

www.youtube.com/bundangbear

[zambezi]

what qualifications does one need for a career in US politics?

[Elizabeth]

America needs ... a QUEEN! Ready 2 come back home, mates?

[JamahlK]

Caroline Kennedy's background is pure art history and fine arts. Well, I guess the luvvies will be delighted, but I doubt whether she has any other constituencies ...

[rick]

I'm an American and New Yorker.

As you note, the problem of appointing Senators is compounded when the potential appointee has no experience in a legislature and no record on the major issues. Caroline Kennedy is such a candidate.

In my view, if she wants the job, let her run for it (in 2010, when the special election is held) and put her resume and positions before the people she would represent.

[F Daniel]

"Be it understood that we in the district of --- have voted and the majority have decided the you will give us your home."

That is the purist form of democracy. Majority rules.

Would you like to live under those auspices? Neither, me.

That's why I have chose to "stay" in the USA.

[maria fuentes]

NOT QUALIFIED.. END OF COMMENT!

SARAH PALIN IS MORE QUALIFIED THAN CAROLYN

[Ron H.]

OTIS BOONE: Wow, I have read tons of inane comments on message boards but yours takes the cake. So sorry if it takes a few moments out of your busy life to have to vote every two years. Boo hoo! If you hate living in a "democracy" so much, there are plenty of other countries around the world that you could move to. You know, places where the dictator or junta in charge would love someone as clueless and complacent as you. By no means do I subscribe to the right-wing "America: love it or leave it" mentality but, based on your comment, you clearly are not deserving of the precious right to vote. A right, I might add, that people are STILL fighting (and dying) for around the world. Get a clue, for your sake and the rest of us.

[Sam]

US Senators were elected by state legislatures until the XVII Amendment to the Constitution, in 1914. The Constitution requires that vacancies in the House be filled through a by-election. Senatorial vacancies are filled by state law, variously the Governor, the Legislature, or by-election.

It is intentional that the entire House run for re-election every two years, and the Senate takes 6 years to replace. The House is supposed to be "close to the people", and the Senate take a longer view. Yes, 40 Senators can prevent momentarily popular extreme legislation from becoming law; that's the idea.

The Electoral College gives more votes percapita to small states than large ones. The Electoral College gives the state's votes to a Presidential candidate whether they win 51% or 91%. Both are to keep candidates from running up super-majorities in a few states/regions and ignoring the rest.
There are 646 MPs in the UK Commons. Say 324 candidates of one party are each elected with 51% of the local vote. The other 322 are elected by 71% for the other party. The PM would be selected by MPs who got less votes than the opposition, but represent more constituencies. See, the UK has an Electoral College, too!

Obama ran a brilliant campaign. He got less then 53% of the direct votes, but over 67% of the Electoral votes, by winning 56% of the states - 28 of 50.

[Ron H.]

STAR O' RABBIE BURNS: Apparently you missed the day they taught Civics 101. You need to LIVE in the state you represent in the Senate. Given that Ted Kennedy is a Senator from Massachusetts and Caroline does not live there, it would be kinda hard for her to assume his seat in the Senate. Duh!

[wm]

the brit has a point..i for one,,wasnst aware of this appointment stuff actually..it does seem rather weird.

[JC]

Appointed - yeah what is she The Queen of England???

[Russ]

If, having done nothing, Kennedy, is the best possible candidate to replace carpet bagger Clinton for the Senate seat, then the State of New York, where I was born, but havent lived there since 1942, is in real bad shape. The candidate name alone is probably the worst qualification for holding an office.
The democrats raised hell over one Bush following another Bush into the White House. How about one Kennedy following another Kennedy and following another Kennedy into the Senate? Er, ah, ummm, and so on! Our republican system of government may not be absolutely the best government, but it is so far ahead of all the other forms of government world wide. Those of you from other countries, mind your own business, run your own countries in your way, and reap whatever benifits, if any, from it as you may. Besides, what is more democratic than voting early and voting often, even years after you have died and being able to count the votes over and over as many times as it is necessairy to come up with enough lost votes to win as the democrats seem prone to do so often? No we are not perfect, but we keep trying to make things better.

[Mark Rhoads]

There are many well-informed comments here and some very odd examples of gross misinformation. Yes, the idea of two senators per state was a compromise between large and small states in 1789, but it had nothing to do with slavery per se as one commenter said. In fact, the idea that slaves were counted for purposes of population at a fraction of 3/5ths of white people was a huge advantage to the South for decades before the Civil War, giving them added seats in the House without having to worry about the slaves voting. I agree that it is likely the founders did not envision a time when the difference in population between small and large population states would be so great as it is today. But if one were to base both houses on only on the basis of population, what really is the point of having a bi-cameral legislative branch when just one chamber could be based on population? Bi-cameralism is another procedurual safeguard that keeps the practice of log rolling to a minimum in two houses and helps to protect personal liberty.

It is amusing to me that some Brits take up the case against legacy seats or nepotism when the House of Lords only recently started to move away from hereditary titles of nobility and the entire British nation has at least a ceremonial head of state whose oonly claim to the post is based on family heredity. This is just silly in the year 2008 for a democracy as great as Great Britain. As recently as the 1950s, the choice of Queen Elizabeth II to send for one prime minister candidate over another of the same party to form a government had real political consequences. So her role was not only limited to ceremonial state functions.

The first direct elections for United States Senators took place in 1914 after the ratification of the 17th Amendment in April, 1913. Ironically, it was another scandal in Illinois almost 100 years ago that finally rallied the reformers to pass the amendment. In 1911, a Democratic state lawmaker named O'Neill Brown from Ottawa, Illinois sold his story to the Chicago Tribune. He claimed that in 1910 agents of Congressman Billy Lorimer (R-Chicago) paid a bribe to Brown of $850 to vote for Lorimer to fill a vacancy in the US Senate. It turned out that Lorimer purchased enough votes in both parties and both houses to win a majority after months of deadlock at the state capital. Defendants in the bribe scheme were tried twice in Cook County and acquitted twice, but both times the juries were also bribed to ensure acquittal. Finally the US Senate after its own investigation had enough of Lorimer's bribery and jury tampering antics and expelled him from the Senate as unfit for office along with another Senator from Pennsylvania for similar misdeeds. The whole Lorimer affair was enough for the public to demand direct election. But it changed American federalism. Whereas in the 19th Century the senators were considered to be ambassadors from the state capitals to the national capital in Washington, after the direct election amendment and the cost of statewide campaigns, the Senate became much more of a rich man's club of independent agents rather than people who were long trained in local, state, and national government.

[ken]

When I was young I was fascinated with John kennedy and his family. Sadly when I grew up, I realised that he and his brothers were far from perfect! Caroline maybe an intellectual but she has not proved to the amecican public that she has the spirit to stand up for them. In fact physically she looked rather frail!

[Rob Schneider]

Daniel

I think you will find that each state has their own laws about how they both elect Senators, and fill the terms of vacant seats. The 17th Ammendment to the Constitution covers this. Elected officials in each state (legistlators, Governors, etc.) define the rules.

[ronski]

Mike in Atlanta:
You hit the nail on the head Bubba - why can't the rest of these pinheads understand the basic concepts of our F-E-D-E-R-A-L R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C form of government. Democracy is a liberal, communist ideal whose only goal is the total anarchy which will lead to their almighty One World Government. We have far too many uneducated, illiterate, TV addicted dimwits voting for our leaders as it is. One should be required to pass a civics class before being allowed to vote.

[mm]

You say she is "intelligent, cool and personable", how would you know? She has cut off every opportunity verbally in the media to say she wants the job in a passionate way. She wants it given to her on her name and how much money she can get from her rich friends. What intelligent thing has she done? What cool thing has she done? Why is being personable important and a qualification for being a U.S. Representative? The fact that you bring these characteristics up are a joke that you would even say them! Are you serious? Read the murphy monkey blog on the comparison to Gov. Palin. http://themurphymonkey.blogspot.com/2008/12/what-do-caroline-kennedy-and-sarah.html

[Edward Edmunds]

As an American, I truly enjoy the posts here. First off, the USA is not a democracy. As one responder pointed out, democracy is pretty much mob rule. The USA is a Constitutional Republic. The danger of the system of government established in the USA is rightly pointed out by another poster in that when the electorate discovers it can vote itself funds from the federal coffers it's all over. That statement was originally made as the Union was being formed and before the constitution was written. It seems to be coming true.

Now about Princess Caroline, one poster indicated we need to follow the money. Princess Caroline appears to largely be ignorant of the Democratic Party process in following the money. That process is to support financially your party, to vote in party elections. Two things she is apparently above.

America does not need a queen. The one across the pond is enough for us to see the mockery your press makes of the entire family as if you can do anything about it. That and several of the comments made here show us wacky Americans that continent envy abounds in the isles.

[fsteele]

Joe, fwiw, according to exit polls Nov 4, 16% of McCain's voters would have voted for Hillary if she had been the Dem nominee. Obama won by 7% iirc; Hillary would have won by 11-12%. (That's not counting Hillary supporters who stayed home Nov 4.)

[Doc Hilliard]

Caroline's last name is Schlossberg, I believe. Whatever her current legal last name the pitiable woman is a complete airhead with pretentions of grandeur.
She might tey editing cookbooks or some other non-public job.

[Clavel]

Caroline Kennedy is an insider, one of the elites, who is going to do what she's told to do.

[Manley G]

I am appalled at the number of incorrect notions expressed by John Chuckman of Toronto. I can't imagine where he finds so many half-truths on which to base his thinking.

Where did he get the idea that the Founding Father's based ANY of their government planning on the "British constitution of the time?" [JOHN: WHAT BRITISH CONSTITUTION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, SINCE NONE EXISTED!!!]

Where did he get the really far-fetched idea that the Founding Fathers admired ANYTHING about the Brits? [JOHN: MY FAMILY MOVED FROM NORTHERN ENGLAND TO MAINE IN 1635. SEVEN GENERATIONS PASSED BEFORE THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW LITTLE THEY EVEN REMEMBERED ABOUT ENGLAND? How much do YOU know about the thought patterns of your ancestors SEVEN generations past? Do you even know their names?]

There is an expression that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and John's writing is proof! He has put so many half-truths together that he has created a daisy-chain that has ZERO connection with present day (or former) American government. [JOHN: PLEASE, IF YOU DON'T DO ANYTHING ELSE, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THE WORD "DEMOCRACY" IS NOT PERTINENT TO AMERICAN GOVERNMENT. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THE WORD "DEMOCRACY" HAS ACHIEVED A HEAVENLY STATUS ONLY AMONG THE FAR LEFT BUT HAS ZERO CONNECTION WITH AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, OR AMERICAN PEOPLE, OR AMERICAN LIVES, OR AMERICAN EFFORT. IOW, YOU ARE TRYING TO INSIST THAT THE USA MUST BE "DEMOCRATIC" OR THEY HAVE FAILED; HOWEVER THAT IS A BIZARRE NOTION THAT ONLY LIVES IN YOUR HEAD. Another thing, John: Please, read actual American history (yes, the dry stuff, not the biased nonsense on Leftist blogs); get into original documents, and peer-reviewed articles and read it will an open mind; you will be amazed at what you have missed. Take a class in constitutional law; learn what the document actually is, not what you think it is. Create timelines; think about what conclusions you are drawing; and do not come to false conclusions just to make your own point; that is the only way to avoid nonsense and bigotry.]

Why do some folks (ALWAYS ON THE LEFT) insist that governments embrace "democracy" as though it is a panacea? Why do some folks insist on "democracy" as a cure for all ills? Why do some folks demand that "democracy" be considered a vital component of people's lives? WHY DOES THE LEFT MEASURE EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE AND EVERY EFFORT AGAINST THEIR OWN SILLY NOTIONS OF "DEMOCRACY" (BUT WHICH MEANS NOTHING TO THINKING PEOPLE)?

John Chuckman is writing about a notion that is separate from American freedom, American government, American citizens, or American dreams. We have done VERY WELL WITHOUT HIS (childish demands for) "DEMOCRACY" AND DON'T WANT OR NEED IT, CONSIDERING THE PROBLEMS IT WOULD CAUSE TO OUR POLITICAL SYSTEMS.

[Lou]

It's extremely annoying listening to Caroline Kennedy use the hesitation phrase, "like, you know" after each and every sentence. I have to turn the channel everytime she speaks. How can anyone take her seriously? She doesn't seem to be able to complete a thought without repeatedly including these three words.

[Proteus48084]

Having seen her interview with the countless 'you knows,' it's pretty obvious that her only qualification is the Kennedy family name.

At least, NY State will have one articulate Senator in 'Schmucky' Schumer.

[Work all day]

Carolyn is definitely not Senate material. She hasn't proven the ability to lie, cheat, and steal (yet). Why would she want to degrade herself by entering public life, is beyond me. Seriously, who would want to associate professionally with 99 other greedy opportunists on a daily basis?

[Kate]

For those who haven't paid attention, whoever is appointed to Senator Clinton's seat will have to run for election in 2010, and if they win, again in 2012 when the seat would normally be up for re-election. Caroline Kennedy is a smart, well-educated individual who has just as many qualifications as others. So, she hasn't been in politics before. So what? Complaints are made about insiders, etc all the time. Now there is a chance for someone who hasn't been exposed to the inside garbage of politics and that's a problem also. You can't have things both ways.

[sledgewig]

you know, you know, you know, you know. . . don't you?

[james henry smit]

Dear Sirs; Why is the world would the London Times have the remotest interest in writing about american senatorial politics; I have noticed that your lead articles are too often about american topics; have you no major british topics to write about. I can read about american issues, more accurately, in the american news...SMIT

[Christopher Wright]

I think she is, you know, probably, you know, actually, you know, of above average intelligence, you know, for the US of A :-)

.... you know

(yawn)

[John Cameron]

"Intelligent, cool, and personable"? She sounded like an English 13 year old explaining Einstein's General Theory, yo kno, yo, kno, yo kno.

[susan]

The Fox or was it CNN commentators also mentioned her "you know" problem, also. I am sure she is a fine woman, but we don't have a royal family in the US.

[GregorTheKiwi]

The notion of appointing Senators is rather odd, but even stranger is the Cabinet appointment process. This means that the key decisions of a US administration are made by people that no one voted for, and who are not accountable at the next election.

[Miles Gloriosus]

Direct election of U.S. senators is the cause of many of America's current problems. Senators were originally appointed by state governments, not elected. Their job was to safeguard the rights of the states against power grabs by the federal government. Direct election of senators turns the U.S. Senate into nothing more than a higher-priced version of the U.S. House of Representatives. Instead of complementing the House, the Senate mimics it on a more grandiose and pompous scale.