Gov. Christie Announces Special Election

[billisonboard]

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie today called for a special election for this October to fill the U.S. Senate seat left open by Sen. Frank Lautenberg's death early Monday. abcnews.go.com/Politics/gov-christie-announces-special-election-sen-lautenbergs-seat/story?id=19323785#.Ua91OzfvK-Y

Extra $25 million?

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Political convenience...in this way he can't really be blasted much by either side in the upcoming election or if he decides to run for President in 2016.

[Deleted]

 I applaud Christie for deferring to the electorate rather than to the cigar-chomping boys in the back-room/insiders who specialize in cutting deals for special interests.

[billisonboard]

Jun 5, 2013 18:18:38 GMT -5 @patiencetried said:

 I applaud Christie for deferring to the electorate rather than to the cigar-chomping boys in the back-room/insiders who specialize in cutting deals for special interests.

But a special primary and then a special election three weeks before an election already scheduled to be held? This with pretty clear agreement that doing it that way instead of having the Senate election at the same time as the normally scheduled one is simply to play to Christie's political advantage - at the cost to taxpayer's of $12 million or so. ( I think that is the right dollar amount since there will have to be a special primary regardless).

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I don't like Chris Christie. I think he's a RINO- and just the sort of politician I'd like to see less of. However, I'm going to go ahead and defend this call. Take the $25 million from somewhere else if they need to- the people of the State of New Jersey should get a say. Until we do away with the 17th Amendment (which I think should happen), people ought to get a direct say.

[billisonboard]

Jun 5, 2013 21:39:10 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I don't like Chris Christie. I think he's a RINO- and just the sort of politician I'd like to see less of. However, I'm going to go ahead and defend this call. Take the $25 million from somewhere else if they need to- the people of the State of New Jersey should get a say. Until we do away with the 17th Amendment (which I think should happen), people ought to get a direct say.

They could just as easily have that say on November 5th as October 16th.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 5, 2013 22:23:13 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 5, 2013 21:39:10 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I don't like Chris Christie. I think he's a RINO- and just the sort of politician I'd like to see less of. However, I'm going to go ahead and defend this call. Take the $25 million from somewhere else if they need to- the people of the State of New Jersey should get a say. Until we do away with the 17th Amendment (which I think should happen), people ought to get a direct say.

They could just as easily have that say on November 5th as October 16th.

Fair point.  I guess the rules are the rules, though.

[Mkitty is pro kitty]

Until we do away with the 17th Amendment (which I think should happen), people ought to get a direct say

So you don't want the people to directly elect Senators, but in the meantime, you want the people to directly elect Senators because you believe they "ought to get a direct say."

File under: people should have a say, unless my side can get more representatives, then screw 'em.



Anyways, I don't know, couldn't we just have an empty seat for a few more weeks? Even if a dem got elected, it's not going to make anything filibuster proof.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 6, 2013 10:04:50 GMT -5 Mkitty is pro kitty said:

Until we do away with the 17th Amendment (which I think should happen), people ought to get a direct say

So you don't want the people to directly elect Senators, but in the meantime, you want the people to directly elect Senators because you believe they "ought to get a direct say."

File under: people should have a say, unless my side can get more representatives, then screw 'em.



Anyways, I don't know, couldn't we just have an empty seat for a few more weeks? Even if a dem got elected, it's not going to make anything filibuster proof.

No, I think we should follow the Constitution, and the law.  IF we don't like them, there's a process for changing them.  Philosophically, I think the original design of the Constitution where Senators are appointed by the legislature of each state would raise the stakes in state (and even local elections) and the closer politics is to the people- the less likely it is to run off the rails.  If you know your City's jackass mayor might become your next state legislator- and the power that carries, you might just care a bit more.  

I think there's less and less participation in elections at every level because they matter less and less.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 5, 2013 21:39:10 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I don't like Chris Christie. I think he's a RINO- and just the sort of politician I'd like to see less of. However, I'm going to go ahead and defend this call. Take the $25 million from somewhere else if they need to- the people of the State of New Jersey should get a say.

why not have a say three weeks later, and save the money?

i thought you were a fiscal conservative.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 6, 2013 7:45:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jun 5, 2013 22:23:13 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

They could just as easily have that say on November 5th as October 16th.

Fair point.  I guess the rules are the rules, though.

what rules?  this was an unexpected and really strange move that he just sorta...did, as far as i can tell.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 17, 2013 12:24:11 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jun 6, 2013 10:04:50 GMT -5 Mkitty is pro kitty said:

So you don't want the people to directly elect Senators, but in the meantime, you want the people to directly elect Senators because you believe they "ought to get a direct say."

File under: people should have a say, unless my side can get more representatives, then screw 'em.



Anyways, I don't know, couldn't we just have an empty seat for a few more weeks? Even if a dem got elected, it's not going to make anything filibuster proof.

No, I think we should follow the Constitution, and the law.  IF we don't like them, there's a process for changing them.  Philosophically, I think the original design of the Constitution where Senators are appointed by the legislature of each state would raise the stakes in state (and even local elections) and the closer politics is to the people- the less likely it is to run off the rails.  If you know your City's jackass mayor might become your next state legislator- and the power that carries, you might just care a bit more.  

I think there's less and less participation in elections at every level because they matter less and less.

i would agree with that.  the fewer elite that vote as a % of electorate, they less they will matter.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 17, 2013 15:03:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 17, 2013 12:24:11 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

No, I think we should follow the Constitution, and the law.  IF we don't like them, there's a process for changing them.  Philosophically, I think the original design of the Constitution where Senators are appointed by the legislature of each state would raise the stakes in state (and even local elections) and the closer politics is to the people- the less likely it is to run off the rails.  If you know your City's jackass mayor might become your next state legislator- and the power that carries, you might just care a bit more.  

I think there's less and less participation in elections at every level because they matter less and less.

i would agree with that.  the fewer elite that vote as a % of electorate, they less they will matter.

The elite, by definition, don't matter in terms of the electorate.  They do, however, matter as candidates.  And the easier it is to launch a campaign from the air with money, the more the elite will influence the electorate. I think the closer to the voter the candidates are, the better.  When your state legislator might pick your US Senator, you're going to pay more attention to that race.  That's my point.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 17, 2013 19:19:37 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jun 17, 2013 15:03:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i would agree with that.  the fewer elite that vote as a % of electorate, they less they will matter.

The elite, by definition, don't matter in terms of the electorate.  They do, however, matter as candidates.  And the easier it is to launch a campaign from the air with money, the more the elite will influence the electorate. I think the closer to the voter the candidates are, the better.  When your state legislator might pick your US Senator, you're going to pay more attention to that race. 

that doesn't sound very  anti-17th amendmenty to me.

That's my point.

if money is speech, then the voices of the rich drown out all others.  and that is, pretty much, a working definition of how things have worked here for a very long time.  more now than ever.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 17, 2013 23:04:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 17, 2013 19:19:37 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The elite, by definition, don't matter in terms of the electorate.  They do, however, matter as candidates.  And the easier it is to launch a campaign from the air with money, the more the elite will influence the electorate. I think the closer to the voter the candidates are, the better.  When your state legislator might pick your US Senator, you're going to pay more attention to that race. 

that doesn't sound very  anti-17th amendmenty to me.

That's my point.

if money is speech, then the voices of the rich drown out all others.  and that is, pretty much, a working definition of how things have worked here for a very long time.  more now than ever.

If I can't use my own money to promote a political candidate, then that would in fact violate my free speech rights, AND my property rights at the same time.  I'm a small "r" republican on this issue.  A popularly elected Senate is the opposite of republican- and a representative REPUBLIC is what we have, not a democracy.  I have no interest in a democracy.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 5, 2013 18:18:38 GMT -5 @patiencetried said:

 I applaud Christie for deferring to the electorate rather than to the cigar-chomping boys in the back-room/insiders who specialize in cutting deals for special interests.

And for once, I actually agree with you.

[billisonboard]

I also agree it was better to defer to the electorate.  I just think he should have had that vote held on the already scheduled November election date rather than hold the special election in October and then the second one in November.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 18, 2013 8:45:27 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jun 17, 2013 23:04:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

if money is speech, then the voices of the rich drown out all others.  and that is, pretty much, a working definition of how things have worked here for a very long time.  more now than ever.

If I can't use my own money to promote a political candidate, then that would in fact violate my free speech rights.

no need for a defensive reaction.  i was merely stating HOW THINGS ARE, Paul.  do you disagree that this is HOW THINGS ARE?

[djAdvocate]

Jun 18, 2013 8:51:47 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I also agree it was better to defer to the electorate.  I just think he should have had that vote held on the already scheduled November election date rather than hold the special election in October and then the second one in November.

but that is not how a Republic works.  the teeming masses don't really matter.  only the enlightened rulers matter.

after all, the thundering herd doesn't know what is best for them.  their "betters" do tho.  right?

[Value Buy]

Jun 18, 2013 11:25:21 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 18, 2013 8:51:47 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I also agree it was better to defer to the electorate.  I just think he should have had that vote held on the already scheduled November election date rather than hold the special election in October and then the second one in November.

but that is not how a Republic works.  the teeming masses don't really matter.  only the enlightened rulers matter.

after all, the thundering herd doesn't know what is best for them.  their "betters" do tho.  right?

Could it have something to do with logistics?
I imagine the primary had already been held, the ballots for the fall election had already been printed, and it would have been cumbersome, or even impossible to mark the Senatorial ballot correctly for the fall election. Who gets on the ballot, who is left off?
After all, do you know who would be on the actual November ballot at this point other then the loyal opposition, maybe an Independent and the deceased Senator?
Some political far right or far left wannabe would have been left off, and filed a lawsuit, etc, etc.

[billisonboard]

Jun 18, 2013 14:55:18 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jun 18, 2013 11:25:21 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

but that is not how a Republic works.  the teeming masses don't really matter.  only the enlightened rulers matter.

after all, the thundering herd doesn't know what is best for them.  their "betters" do tho.  right?

Could it have something to do with logistics?
I imagine the primary had already been held, the ballots for the fall election had already been printed, and it would have been cumbersome, or even impossible to mark the Senatorial ballot correctly for the fall election. Who gets on the ballot, who is left off?
After all, do you know who would be on the actual November ballot at this point other then the loyal opposition, maybe an Independent and the deceased Senator?
Some political far right or far left wannabe would have been left off, and filed a lawsuit, etc, etc.

Yes, a special primary would have to have been held regardless because there was no primary election for this office since the position was not up for election in this cycle. This also means that no one would be on the ballots for this position if already printed. There will be a ballot printed for this one race. Those ballots could be handed out at a special election or they could be handed out as a supplemental ballot at the regular election (if the other ballots had been printed). They could also print entirely new ballots for the general election. I doubt that the cost of reprinting the longer ballot of the general election minus the cost of printing the special ballot would come close to the cost of holding the special election.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 18, 2013 14:55:18 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jun 18, 2013 11:25:21 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

but that is not how a Republic works.  the teeming masses don't really matter.  only the enlightened rulers matter.

after all, the thundering herd doesn't know what is best for them.  their "betters" do tho.  right?

Could it have something to do with logistics?
I imagine the primary had already been held, the ballots for the fall election had already been printed, and it would have been cumbersome, or even impossible to mark the Senatorial ballot correctly for the fall election. Who gets on the ballot, who is left off?
After all, do you know who would be on the actual November ballot at this point other then the loyal opposition, maybe an Independent and the deceased Senator?
Some political far right or far left wannabe would have been left off, and filed a lawsuit, etc, etc.

i don't understand.  here is how i see the alternatives:

1)    you hold a special election 3 weeks early which requires printing special ballots, and deploying resources to monitor and count it, at a cost of $12-25M depending on who is telling the story.
2)    you give everyone an extra 3 weeks, at no additional cost to the taxpayer.

how is #2 MORE logistically difficult?

[billisonboard]

Jun 18, 2013 18:32:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

... a cost of $12-25M depending on who is telling the story.
...

I think it was $12.5M per voting day so primary plus special gives you the $25M. But I don't have a source so take it for what you think it is worth.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 18, 2013 18:55:33 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 18, 2013 18:32:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

... a cost of $12-25M depending on who is telling the story.
...

I think it was $12.5M per voting day so primary plus special gives you the $25M. But I don't have a source so take it for what you think it is worth.

not sure either.  but it sounds like a monumental waste, either way.