Democrats could lose their Senate majority

Stargal

A Democratic Senator in the US has had a stroke and may have to stand down - which means that his replacement would be chosen by the state governor, who just happens to be a Republican; this could mean that the Democrats would lose their majority in the Senate.

Full story here from the BBC.

I can't think of anything more gutting for the Democrats, than to work so hard to gain control of both the House and the Senate, and then to have it taken away from them like this. Fingers crossed that the guy will be okay.

Manic Moran

It's not a stroke.

My immediate and totally amateur guess from the media reports is he'll be able to return to duty.

In the event he must stand down, the legislature technically has the power to nominate the replacement. However, both houses are heavily Republican, and it would be expected that the power would be delegated to the Republican governor.

Still, I would be surprised if he is going to step down from what I know so far.

NTM

spanner

sorry guys I dont get it, would they just not have like a by election? is this just a tempoary appointment? surely you cant just appoint a new senator without a election...

Manic Moran

would they just not have like a by election? is this just a tempoary appointment?

We go to the polls every two years here. For the sake of the whole run-up and election campaign, you might as well just have an interim stand-in appointed until the next election comes around. Come the next set of elections, they will either confirm the appointee for the remaining two years of the term, or the elections will install someone else.

NTM

bk

Manic Moran wrote:

We go to the polls every two years here. For the sake of the whole run-up and election campaign, you might as well just have an interim stand-in appointed until the next election comes around. Come the next set of elections, they will either confirm the appointee for the remaining two years of the term, or the elections will install someone else.

Another great example of US democracy at work.

Victor

bk wrote:

Another great example of US democracy at work.

In Ireland if a councillor dies, it is up to the party and / or family to nominate someone until the next election. When there was no local elections for 7 years, few councillors had actully been elected by the public.

Manic Moran

bk wrote:

Another great example of US democracy at work.

I think it's reasonable enough, myself. After all, the State House and the Governor were both also elected by the people, they can't be too far from their wishes, and the 'remainder of a two year cycle' isn't usually all that long. It's just particularly unfortunate in this case that the incident happens at the beginning. Would it really be worth an election if the guy happened to take ill only a third the way into his term? (i.e. about 6 months before the next time the voters go to the polls?)

NTM

bk

Victor wrote:

In Ireland if a councillor dies, it is up to the party and / or family to nominate someone until the next election. When there was no local elections for 7 years, few councillors had actully been elected by the public.

Yes, but the US Senate is more equivalent to the Dail then a piddling councillor.

Judt

I think that in this scenario it could be unfortunate - IE when a majority is that slim, and the appointment of a successor comes along partisan lines. Otherwise one might say "It's a good system", if it were a democrat nominating a fellow democrat to replace the outgoing democrat, but obviously here it raises eyebrows.

There's a lot at stake in these two years, which are both the final two of the sitting US president, of the opposing party, and the two presidential election years (once you factor in primaries and so on.) It's not quite the same as nominating someone to step in for an ill council member.

And you all thought the Russian administration was dodgy..........

Manic Moran

Judt wrote:

Otherwise one might say "It's a good system", if it were a democrat nominating a fellow democrat to replace the outgoing democrat, but obviously here it raises eyebrows.

Bear in mind that the people of the Great State of South Dakota two months ago elected the Republican governor to carry out all the duties of a governor: One of them is to appoint senators in the case of a resignation. The Senator is a particularly rare case: A long-serving successful Democratic politician in a very Republican state. My thought is that he is both particularly competent at his job, and also probably does not entirely toe the D. party line, making him quite appealing to S.D.'s voters: Allowing the D. party to nominate his interim replacement might prove less 'fair' to South Dakotans than allowing the State Houses and Governor to do the job.

NTM

Traumadoc

Manic Moran wrote:

It's not a stroke.

It was a stroke.

bk

Manic Moran wrote:

Bear in mind that the people of the Great State of South Dakota two months ago elected the Republican governor to carry out all the duties of a governor: One of them is to appoint senators in the case of a resignation. The Senator is a particularly rare case: A long-serving successful Democratic politician in a very Republican state. My thought is that he is both particularly competent at his job, and also probably does not entirely toe the D. party line, making him quite appealing to S.D.'s voters: Allowing the D. party to nominate his interim replacement might prove less 'fair' to South Dakotans than allowing the State Houses and Governor to do the job.

That is why the only fair (democratic) system would be to allow the South Dakotans to decide with a by-election.

Anyway, was watching the ABC News last night and they said that as long as he is alive, that he will likely retain his seat (even if he was unconscious, etc.).

Judt

Manic Moran wrote:

Bear in mind that the people of the Great State of South Dakota two months ago elected the Republican governor to carry out all the duties of a governor: One of them is to appoint senators in the case of a resignation. The Senator is a particularly rare case: A long-serving successful Democratic politician in a very Republican state. My thought is that he is both particularly competent at his job, and also probably does not entirely toe the D. party line, making him quite appealing to S.D.'s voters: Allowing the D. party to nominate his interim replacement might prove less 'fair' to South Dakotans than allowing the State Houses and Governor to do the job.

NTM

Fact that he was elected on a democratic ticket, when things are that close, says to me that then appointing a republican would also be unfair. A by-election would be best - though then you're into happy slap season, as we all know with by-elections.

I'd say the most likely course, as is emerging, is that so long as this guy has breath in his lungs he'll stay in the house; better a draw than a minority.

Manic Moran

There is precedent for that. In the 1970s, an S.D. senator was in no fit condition to serve, but refused to resign unless the Governor appointed his wife to take his place. The Governor refused, and so the seat remained effectively vacant.

A by-election may be best in theory, but having a by-election rule in a place where people go to the polls so often anyway is not particularly efficient. An interesting case was that of Paul Wellstone (D-MN), who died back in 2002: The Governor's appointment was only for about three months. (As an aside, it's to be noted that he openly refused to consider a D. position for the appointment, choosing a member of the Independent party instead, a position evidently not at odds to the voters as the elected replacement for the appointment wasn't D either)

NTM

bk

Judt wrote:

I'd say the most likely course, as is emerging, is that so long as this guy has breath in his lungs he'll stay in the house; better a draw than a minority.

It isn't a draw, it was 51 - 49, with him not voting it is 50 - 49. The problem only arises if he was replaced by a republican making it 50 - 50. The issue then is that the tie-breaking vote falls to the President of the Senate, who is the vice-president of the US (Dick Cheney, a republican).