Commentary On Elections-Part Forty-Four, Part Forty-Five, And Part Forty-Six

Commentary On Elections-Part Forty-Four

The Choosing Of Federal Senators In Government Mode:

Representative Democratic Mode-Number Three (Session Two)

There are times in which the same solution can be applied to different scenarios and it works even if it is for a different reason.

Before the American Civil War, states chose its ambassadors to serve in the subordinate body, the united States Senate. Since the Civil War's aftermath, states became subordinates to the nation. Due to this phenomenon, state legislatures may still actually be better suited to choose their superiors in the United States Senate in order to contain the power and scope of federal government.

Commentary On Elections-Part Forty-Five

The Choosing Of Federal Senators In Government Mode:

Representative Democratic Mode-Number Three (Session Three)

The members of the state government have no contact with the U.S. Senate so the conflicts of interests do not exist. At the same time, a state government officeholder should understand the genuine role of an U.S. Senator much better than an average voter.

A state government officeholder can be held accountable if he/she votes for a bad candidate for U.S. Senate by losing his/her office at the time of next elections. An elector cannot be held accountable for his/her choice since he/she have no constituents to answer. While the elector system works in choosing the POTUS and VPOTUS because they do not have to answer to the electorate, it would not work in the choosing of the members of the U.S. Senate because the people who choose these members need to answer to the People. A U.S. Senator must consider the views of his/her constituents in making the law while the head executives of the federal government should not as they preside over the administration of the law with cold, hard objectivity.

Commentary On Elections-Part Forty-Six

The Choosing Of Federal Senators In Government Mode:

Representative Democratic Mode-Number Three (Session Four)

The state governments must pick the members of the U.S. Senate so that accountability can be emphasized. The choosing of U.S. Senators must be more of a competent one than a popular one. It must more so than the choosing of federal lower house representatives. This is why U.S. Senators serve longer terms than even the President and Vice-President.

The vice-governor fields a list of five candidates for the governor to choose. The governor nominates a candidate from that list and refers his/her nomination to both houses of the state legislature for confirmation. Each state legislative house must provide at least 50% approval with a quorum of two-thirds before a candidate for U.S. Senator is confirmed.

If no candidate must muster this, then the following measures must be applied. Members of each house cast votes for the Top Two candidates. The candidate for U.S. Senator who receives the most votes is selected as such. The upper state legislative house is to be given primary influence in this selection because of parallel-verification. Since the U.S. Senate is based on a area-based model, their members need to be selected by a area-based model if both houses fail to choose a member of the U.S. Senate. Parallel-verification is needed, at least initially, for legislative offices. For head executive offices cross-verification should be initially be used

In head executive offices, the democratic-based model of choosing an officeholder should be at least primarily the different than the democratic model of the office itself. Executive officeholders are supposed to be insulated from their constituents more so than legislative officeholders. That is the reason the democratic-based models has to have contrast so that people in these positions will be more able to serve all people with uniformity.

In legislative offices, the democratic-based model of choosing an officeholder should be at least primarily the came as the democratic model of the office itself. Legislative officeholders are supposed to be partial to their constituents more so than executive officeholders. That is the reason the democratic-based model has to be the same as people in these positions have to serve their constituents first and foremost.

People should rather have a competent auto-mechanic, who is not involved in any conflict of interests, to work on their cars than for them to work on their cars on their own. If that auto-mechanic commits incompetence, people can hold that individual accountable. If the people commit incompetence, then the people will not able to blame anyone else. Since the job of U.S. Senator requires good acumen, good judgement, and knowledge of foreign affairs, people should rather have competent and conflict of interests-free state government officeholders decide who the U.S. Senators should be rather than their fellow voters taking such decision.