A Champ in the presidential race

I don't see how.

Elections cost money to conduct. Here, you're asking the states, if you go with the odd-year elections, to fund elections in some cases in three years continually. That means staffing polling places, making sure there are enough supplies, and, depending on the circumstances, policing costs. Also, in the U.S. schools are often polling places, but each state or locality will still have to pay teahers and possibly other school staffers for the day off because there won't be classes (if it's a facility for secondary or primary education and not a university), but the building will be in use.

It's a one-time shift in schedule, you're making mountains out of molehills.

Except that it's not, and blame the states, not me.
 
Elections cost money to conduct. Here, you're asking the states, if you go with the odd-year elections, to fund elections in some cases in three years continually. That means staffing polling places, making sure there are enough supplies, and, depending on the circumstances, policing costs. Also, in the U.S. schools are often polling places, but each state or locality will still have to pay teahers and possibly other school staffers for the day off because there won't be classes (if it's a facility for secondary or primary education and not a university), but the building will be in use.



Except that it's not, and blame the states, not me.

OK, I've read back and I think I get what you were talking about. You're referring to odd-year local elections that would fall in the same year as either the Congressional or the presidential elections. These already have to fund one election or the other every year (presidential and Congressional in 1916, local in 1917, Congressional in 1918, local in 1919), so I don't think I'm asking for any extra expense; they're already spending money to avoid overlaps. As for scheduling, move the local elections to May.
 
OK, I've read back and I think I get what you were talking about. You're referring to odd-year local elections that would fall in the same year as either the Congressional or the presidential elections. These already have to fund one election or the other every year (presidential and Congressional in 1916, local in 1917, Congressional in 1918, local in 1919), so I don't think I'm asking for any extra expense; they're already spending money to avoid overlaps. As for scheduling, move the local elections to May.

Moving the local elections will cost extra money and would be unfair to workers and everyone else. Furthermore, the states might fund elections as it is three of every four years in some instances, but your plan would require funding an election in some cases four years in a row. Further, this line of argument on your part is moot if the admendment in question makes no adjustment to the electoral calendar other than extending the presidential term.
 
Moving the local elections will cost extra money and would be unfair to workers and everyone else.

Why? You're just spending money at one date rather than another. What extra expense is involved?

Furthermore, the states might fund elections as it is three of every four years in some instances, but your plan would require funding an election in some cases four years in a row.

You're going to have to give me examples.

Further, this line of argument on your part is moot if the admendment in question makes no adjustment to the electoral calendar other than extending the presidential term.

I would expect the supporters of a 6-year presidential term to take into account objections being raised if they want it passed.
 
I would expect the supporters of a 6-year presidential term to take into account objections being raised if they want it passed.

For my money the two most likely reactions are

1) Do nothing - ie decide that the anomaly isn't serious enough to justify further tinkering with the Constitution.

2) A further Amendment to give every State three Senators rather than two. That way all the Sattes are in the same boat, electing one Senator in a Presidential years and two in off years.

My guess is that at least initially it would be (1), but (2) might happen later - perhaps as an addendum to the Twentieth Amendment if that still happens.
 
The problem is that you cannot remake the delicate balance that has governed the country for well over a century by that point in history by proposing that it be remade further.
 
The problem is that you cannot remake the delicate balance that has governed the country for well over a century by that point in history by proposing that it be remade further.


That's what some conservatives said about direct election of Senators, but it still went through. The initiative, referendum and direct primary were also criticised in some quarters, but became widely accepted. The country was ina reforming mood.

However, as I myself noted, the "three Senators" idea is only a maybe. It may simply be decided that the anomaly (created by some States electing one of their Senators elected in a Presidential year, and some electing both in off years) is just not serious enough to require any fiurther action.
 
That's what some conservatives said about direct election of Senators, but it still went through. The initiative, referendum and direct primary were also criticised in some quarters, but became widely accepted. The country was ina reforming mood.

However, as I myself noted, the "three Senators" idea is only a maybe. It may simply be decided that the anomaly (created by some States electing one of their Senators elected in a Presidential year, and some electing both in off years) is just not serious enough to require any fiurther action.

Even when the country has been in a "reforming mood" those reforms have usually been limited. Direct election of senators is really only a minor change. Reclaibrating the political landscape as this thread proposes would be rather more revolutionary.
 
Even when the country has been in a "reforming mood" those reforms have usually been limited. Direct election of senators is really only a minor change. Reclaibrating the political landscape as this thread proposes would be rather more revolutionary.


If you mean my "third senator" suggestion, or the moving of Senate elections to odd numbered years, you are probably right. Afaik not even Bryan or Champ Clark ever advocated them.

However, if you mean the six-year-term Amendment itself, this seems to have had plenty of support. In particular, it received 13 Senate votes from the Old Confederacy, to only one opposed. The lone dissenter was a Tennessee Republican who had been appointed by the Governor to fill a vacancy, and would never have been chosen by the Legislature. The Old South was not much given to returning dangerous radicals, and its Senators seem to have been happy enough with the idea.

Also, of course, this measure was passed by a lame-duck Republican Senate - 51R-44D. Since the Dems picked up seven more seats in 1912, this indicates that the composition of the Legislatures was still moving in their favour - good news for the Amendment.

One final point. As I noted earlier, out of thirteen Constitutional Amendments sent to the States in the 20C, only two - the Child Labor Amendment and the Equal Rights Amendment - were rejected. Further googling confirms what I had already suspected, that in each case the defeat was due to strong opposition from a particular section. Of the twenty states not ratifying the CLA, thirteen were Southern or Border States, and ditto for ten of the thirteen which never ratified the ERA. By contrast, there seems to have been no such sectional opposition to the 6YT Amendment. By my count the breakdown in the Senate was as follows

South - 13Y, 1N, 8NV [1]
Border [2] - 5Y, 3N, 4NV
Northeast - 8Y, 6N, 4NV
Midwest - 8Y, 9N, 4NV [3]
Mountain - 10Y, 2N, 4NV
Pacific - 3Y, 2N, 1NV.

Only in the Midwest did a plurality of Senators reject the Amendment, and there only by a single vote. It seems to have enjoyed substantial support in every region, and massive support in two (South and Mountain). Agreed, this does not guarantee ratification, but it suggests to me that if passed by the House (a foregone conclusion had it ever come to a vote there) it stood an excellent chance in the Legislatures, where in most cases only simple majorities were required.

[1] The NYT doesn't give the reasons for Senators not voting, but quite a few of them were probably paired.

[2] DE, MD, WV, KY, MO, OK.

[3] One of the Illinois Senate seats was vacant.
 
Last edited:
If you're going to ignore my posts, then why do I bother?


Which one am I ignoring?

You seem desperate to deny that the 6YT Amendment could be ratified, because it would result in some states having a Senator elected in a Presidential year, but some not. Well, I won't deny the possibility that the odd Legislature here or there might conceivably reject it for that reason, but there seems no reason to assume that it would be a killer.

After all, the Senators who passed it OTL were nearly all chosen by those same State Legislatures (the 17h Amendment was before the States, but not ratified until May 1913, so direct election became the norm only from the 1914 midterms) so it seems a little unlikely that their political philosophies would be hugely out of sync with the bodies that had elected them. And as I noted in my last message, the usual reason for an Amendment failing to be ratified - opposition by a "local majority" in a particular section - was apparently absent in this case.

If you are just saying that ratification is not inevitable, I have no problem with that - there can always be a glitch - but if you are claiming it is impossible, as you seem to be doing, then I can't see any basis at all for such an assumption.
 
Top