Replies

No. We are not a parliamentary system. We cannot assume that someone voting for a senator who happens to be a Dem or a Rep needs the successor to be from the same party, or even the same ideology.

Maybe not, but do you honestly think the voters of NJ, if given the opportunity to pick the replacement would now pick a Republican?

This is one reason I prefer the system Kansas has. Each Precinct in each county elects one male and one female of each party to be a precinct person. If an elected office opens up in the middle of a term, the elected precinct persons of the party who previously held that office select the replacement. There's no one individual who makes the choice (thus, not much likelihood of "buying" the position), the people get to keep the party they previously chose, and with so many individuals involved from different areas, you are more likely to get a selection that best reflects the "political flavor" of the voting public.

Maybe not, but do you honestly think the voters of NJ, if given the opportunity to pick the replacement would now pick a Republican?

They picked Christie, in the not too distant past they put in 3/4s Republicans when Jim Flim-Flam Florio crammed through a massive tax bill that included a toilet paper tax. Of course, the Republicans punted when given a veto-proof majority to get anything useful done.

We can make NO assumptions about who we THINK people would vote for. Christie makes the call, and if he is way off he will pay for it. That's how it is supposed to be in NJ. I would HATE the Kansas system where I live in Illinois, where the powers selected a new party head who gave mainly to Dems. If the party can be co-opted, then true reform is next to impossible.

The United States Constitution does not recognize parties. I am grieved that state and local governments, as well as congressional rules, do. The Founding Fathers were generally wary of them.