Massachusetts Two Step

[Jester]

So there it is, if I'm understanding it properly. It is the legislature that has the power here. The governor gets the ability to appoint ONLY if the legislature trusts him to do so. If they feel the gov will thwart the will of the people they can revoke that ability. So they didn't trust Romney, good for them. Hurray Massachusetts. If I'm reading it right, it's not "underhanded" at all, it's one of the "checks and balances". (Jester, I'm interested in your response to this, if you have one.)

First, legislative bodies in democracies have almost unlimited power. If the congress wanted to amend the constitution to delete free speech, that is within their powers. What they legally can do within their powers does not determine what they should do.

Second, I have no problem with the executive and the legislative branches of a state negotiating whatever balance of power they want. But once they've decided on it, they should stick to it unless there is some good structural reason to change it, or there is a serious crisis. I'm no fan of Mitt Romney, but giving him the power to appoint a senator is hardly a crisis. And it's obvious there was no structural issue, or else they wouldn't be changing it back again.

This is a legislative body acting arbitrarily for the partisan group that controls it. That is a very dangerous road to walk down. It seriously erodes the trust in the overall process. That trust is the thing which makes parties concede power gracefully when elections are held. This is absolutely critical for a democracy. See Latin America for a wealth of contrary cases.

-Jester