The US is a Republic more so than a Democracy

They are mummified and kept in their chairs.

I don't know the rules but somehow for Senators they have a substitute picked to finish the year or term, then there will be another election.

For Representatives they may just wait the few months till the next election.

Time for QuickSilver to step in with some facts more correct than my thinking.
 

Thanks Bobf and QuickSilver.

That's pretty close to our system, which in part, was modelled on yours.

The difference is that we have maximum three year terms for MPs but it can be less if the government chooses to go early, and half senate elections are held every three years (fixed term). Six senators per state (plus two? per territory) who are decided by proportional representation across the whole state. Their term is six years like yours.

One of the anomalies that arises is that when we have an election for the House of Reps, we also have a half senate one at the same time, but the senators-elect can't be sworn in for some months until the outgoing ones have finished their terms. It leads to some very interesting politics in the meantime.

What happens if a senator dies in office. How is he/she replaced?

While the Constitution does not mandate a method by which vacancies in the Senate are to be handled, vacancies can be filled almost immediately by the governor of the former senator's state. The laws of some states require the governor to call a special election to replace U.S. Senators. In states where replacements are appointed by the governor, the governor almost always appoints a member of his or her own political party. In some cases, the governor will appoint one of the state's current U.S. representatives in the House to fill the vacant Senate seat, thus creating a vacancy in the House. Vacancies in Congress also occur when a member runs for and is elected to some other political office before his or her term is over.
Since Senate vacancies can be filled so quickly and each state has two senators, it is highly unlikely that a state would ever be without representation in the Senate.

Vacancies in the House, however, take far longer to fill. The Constitution requires that member of the House be replaced only by an election held in the congressional district of the former representative.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/blvacancies.htm
 

Interesting read and again, somewhat similar to our rules.

The Australian Constitution did not include reference to political parties originally but it does now as a result of the turbulent time of the Whitlam Government (Gough Whitlam is the PM who recently died aged 98).

For over seventy years the interpretation of the constitution section dealing with casual vacancies called for a replacement from the same party of the member who had died or otherwise left the senate.

The state Governor declared a vacancy, the party offered up a selection of suitable candidates, the state government approved one of them and then the governor appointed him/her to fill the vacancy.

Then the conventions were abandoned in favour of political mischief and now the constitution has been changed to say that theappointment must be from the same party that the departing senator was in at the time of the election.

Background to this change here:

When a Senate seat representing one of the six states becomes vacant, Section 15 of the Australian Constitution requires the parliament of the relevant state to choose a replacement. This is done in a joint sitting of the upper and lower houses (except for Queensland, which has a unicameral parliament). In the event that the state parliament is not in session, the Governor of the state (acting on the advice of the state's executive council) may appoint the replacement, but such an appointment lapses if it is not confirmed by a joint sitting within 14 days after the beginning of the next session of the state parliament.

Prior to 29 July 1977, it was an established convention, but not a constitutional requirement, that the state parliament choose (or the governor appoint) a replacement from the same political party as their predecessor. It had also been the practice for the relevant party to provide a list of suitable names to the state premier, and for the state parliament to make the choice. In 1975, both these conventions were breached - in the former case, twice.

On 9 February 1975, the New South Wales Labor Senator Lionel Murphy resigned from the Senate to take up an appointment as a judge of the High Court of Australia. On 27 February, the NSW Liberal Premier Tom Lewis appointed Cleaver Bunton, a former long-serving Mayor of Albury, who was not affiliated with any political party. Bunton sat as an independent senator.

On 30 June 1975, the Queensland Labor Senator Bertie Milliner died suddenly. The Labor Party gave only one replacement name to the Country Party Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen - that of Mal Colston. However, on 3 September, at Bjelke-Petersen's instigation, the Parliament of Queensland appointed Albert Field to the vacancy. Although he had been a member of the Labor Party for 30 years, Field was now openly critical of the Labor government of Gough Whitlam, and he was immediately expelled from the party for accepting the appointment. Field took his seat in the Senate as an independent. However, there were doubts as to his constitutional eligibility to sit at all. Although he had resigned from the Queensland Department of Education the day before he was appointed, the Education Act (Qld) required three weeks notice of resignation, and it was arguable that he was therefore still in Crown service (this technicality had been ignored many times in the past). The Labor Party immediately challenged Field's appointment in the High Court, and he was on leave from the Senate from
1 October for the remainder of his short-lived term, which ended when the parliament was dissolved on 11 November.[SUP][12][/SUP]

On 21 May 1977, a referendum was held on the question of whether the Constitution should be changed to require future Senate casual vacancies to be filled by a member of the party represented by the former senator at the time of their election, if the state parliament chooses to fill the vacancy. The referendum was passed and came into effect on 29 July 1977. Where a senator had been elected representing a certain party, and changed allegiances to a different party mid-term, and then died or resigned, the replacement senator would be a person representing the first party. This was first implemented when Senator Steele Hall, who at the time of his election represented the Liberal Movement but had later changed to the Liberal Party of Australia, resigned and was replaced by Janine Haines. She represented the Australian Democrats and was chosen because the Liberal Movement had merged with the Democrats.

As the young ones say on Facebook, it's complicated.
 
It has to be a democracy. After all, here I am sharing a page with BobF...whom I totally disagree with. This wouldn't happen in Mecca, Peking, or Moscow. We should celebrate our ability to do so.
 
The Senators, here in the U.S. are limited to two per State. The Representatives elected to the House, however, have numbers set dependant upon population of the States. We currently have 235 Representatives from our 50 States.

Two issues have developed over the past few years. One is the huge amount of money that is put into elections in one State from politicial forces outside the State. The "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision has made this even worse. We have candidates for offices paying $170,000/year seeing close to $1 billion... yes, with a "B"... spent on their election. Most all Senatorial and Representative races today see well over $1 million spent on the campaigns. A large chunk of that money comes from billionaires across the Country who seek to "buy" politicians so they can have favorable legislation passed or unfavorable legislation defeated.

The other issue is "gerrymandering". State legislatures can change the boundries for the districts from which Representatives are elected. Originally, the population of the districts was to be similar from district to district. That is still the case, but the boundries are being moved, strategically, to favor one political party. Areas that see large populations of an opposing party are broken up and split between districts that have overwhelming populations of the favored party. Many of these gerrymandering efforts have been challenged in the court system. Some have been reversed... some not.

Politics in America has become much more than residents going to a voting booth and casting their vote. It has become a huge money game, with strategic manipulation of voters and their ability to access polls. The voter is drowned in back to back television and radio ads, most of which are less than truthful. There is no penalty for stating falsehoods in campaign ads. And, there is no penalty for our media to be slanted towards one party or the other. It's extremely difficult for the uninformed to make intelligent decisions.

It's a constantly changing polticial environment in the U.S., significantly different than that envisioned by our forefathers... but so much better than anywhere else on this planet!!!!
 
I learnt about the gerrymander in the 1960's and it was prevalent over here too, especially in Queensland.
It has been eliminated because boundaries and redistributions are now the responsibility of the independent Australian Electoral office which also conducts all elections according to federal and state law. They conduct elections for local government as well. They manage the roll too.

Politics in America has become much more than residents going to a voting booth and casting their vote. It has become a huge money game, with strategic manipulation of voters and their ability to access polls. The voter is drowned in back to back television and radio ads, most of which are less than truthful. There is no penalty for stating falsehoods in campaign ads. And, there is no penalty for our media to be slanted towards one party or the other. It's extremely difficult for the uninformed to make intelligent decisions.
Much the same here too.
 
Politics in America has become much more than residents going to a voting booth and casting their vote. It has become a huge money game, with strategic manipulation of voters and their ability to access polls. The voter is drowned in back to back television and radio ads, most of which are less than truthful. There is no penalty for stating falsehoods in campaign ads. And, there is no penalty for our media to be slanted towards one party or the other. It's extremely difficult for the uninformed to make intelligent decisions.

First and foremost, we have the disasterous Citizen's United ruling thanks to the Conservative Roberts Court. It opened the floodgates for Big Money to be able to influence and in essence to BUY elections.. insuring their interests are met, not the average citizen.

However, we can also thank Ronald Reagan, who effectively eliminated the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987 by a 4-0 vote by the FCC. Congress tried to stop the ruling, however, the legislation was vetoed by Reagan and the way was paved for cable news to (Fox news comes to mind) to broadcast partisan propaganda and falsehoods.

On this page

Word Browser



Share: Cite / link:
Fairness Doctrine The doctrine that imposes affirmative responsibilities on a broadcaster to provide coverage of issues of public importance that is adequate and fairly reflects differing viewpoints. In fulfilling its fairness doctrine obligations, a broadcaster must provide free time for the presentation of opposing views if a paid sponsor is unavailable and must initiate programming on public issues if no one else seeks to do so.

 
Very VERY well said!!! We all have to vote... and this is being made harder in some States due to voter suppression laws... enacted specifically to keep people from voting... under the guise of preventing nonexistant voter fraud..


We have had exactly the same thing happen here in Canada and our government who enacted changes even got caught out in a lie that was supposed to prove their point, that the laws needed to be changed and they still had the audacity to continue ahead with the change. As our government tends to be more interested in the corporations (specifically the oil industry) their interest was in making it hard for students(who tend to be more idealistic) and the poor to vote.
 


Back
Top