1. Perhaps since this particular election might be needed to be conducted due to some official “error,” otherwise Governor Scott should be allowed to fill the vacancy of any office in Florida, and that person allowed to serve until the regular elections of 2016. But instead, the poor overtaxed citizens of Florida will have to pay for this otherwise unnecessary election. In my earlier reply, I wrote:

   “Why should the voters have to bear the burden of extra election costs for a special elections? Why not allow the governor of the state to fill the vacancy of any office until the next regularly scheduled election.

   Florida – as all states – allows the governor to appoint a vacancy in a U.S. Senate seat and Florida also allows the governor to fill vacancies for county offices. So why not also for congressional seats and legislative seats?

   It would save the taxpayers thousands of dollars.

   As the late Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen once said, “A billion here and a billion there, next thing you know you’re talking about real money.”

2. Looks what happened in the corrupt state of Blagobama with the appointment of Senator.

   Do you think having the governor appoint a hand-picked sycophant is going to save taxpayers money?

3. Jim Riley:

   “Looks what happened in the corrupt state of Blagobama with the appointment of Senator.”

   Don’t know what you mean by the above.

   But in a real situation, of course it will save money. This is just common sense. Didn’t say the appointed “sycophant” (as you define them) will be any worse than an elected one. That’s not the issue.

   But holding a Primary Election, then followed by a General Election, is going to cost thousands if not hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money. And how many times during the course of the two year election cycle, do we hear of someone dying or resigning mid-term. Not that often per state.

   I still say governors should have opportunity to appoint all vacancies in publicly elected office. I will amend these viewpoints to say, that, for example, should an elected official dies (or resigns) during he/her 1st year of a 4 year term, then yes, let the appointment be for only two years – or until the next election cycle, at which such time the state would be holding an election for other offices anyway.

   Despite my populism, I’m “conservative” (as compared to being “wasteful” and any time we can save the taxpayers money, I’m all for it.

4. Do you know if Vladimir Putin can fill vacancies in the Duma by appointment?

5. So what? I’m not concerned what Mr. Putin can do within his regime. We’re not talking about the political mechanisms of a regime, but rather the United States, a constitutional republic – at least in theory even if not in realty. The point is when we can save money, and such is not going to effect the political spectrum or our personal liberties permanently, then let’s save the money to be spent on for things which are more important.

6. This special election is necessary because Florida has bad electoral policy. If that were to be just covered-up by a governor filling in the slot by appointment that would encourage bad electoral policy as governors would rather pick representatives instead a more popular or direct way.

   If the special election costs, well good. That might be the only thing that gets voters thinking about the value of political representation. A bargain a the price.

7. If Florida adopted Top 2, there would be no reason to use a loophole in order to prevent voters from choosing their legislators.

8. Larry Allred:

   How often does a seat of a legislature become vacant? 2 to 4 times at best during an election cycle? To keep the Governor from picking someone of his/her party, have the appointment law to read that “such appointee must be one of no party affiliation.” This would keep the Governor from appointing one from his/her own party to tip the scales in a state where 1 or 2 votes could change partisan control of the legislative body. And, if the Governor just happened to be a Independent, let the law read, “such appointee must be from the party with the least representation in the legislature.

   Using the old noggin, there are many ways to save taxpayers dollars, while still promoting good government.

9. Picking at random from the list of filed candidates (negligible cost) would be far better for the state than a plum from the governor. All legislators should see themselves as independent from the administration.

10. Tell me what Democratic governor would still not pick a Democratic candidate or vice-versa?

    If you want to see legislators as independent from the administration, again, my suggestion makes sense. So one more time:

    “To keep the Governor from picking someone of his/her party, have the appointment law to read that “such appointee must be one of no party affiliation.” This would keep the Governor from appointing one from his/her own party to tip the scales in a state where 1 or 2 votes could change partisan control of the legislative body. And, if the Governor just happened to be a Independent, let the law read, “such appointee must be from the party with the least representation in the legislature.

    Using the old noggin, there are many ways to save taxpayers dollars, while still promoting good government.”

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.