In the comments to the Caroline Kennedy post below, Scott writes, "I don't understand this argument. You are opposed to someone with so many legs up over any competition being appointed - but of course she'd still have all those advantages in an election...Making her kiss babies and make the rounds meeting with New York's power brokers doesn't change that. I'm afraid I miss the inherent value in going through those motions to get to the same result." Similarly, Anne says that she's "still [a] dynastic choice even if the voters make that choice." Maybe so, but then the voters make that choice. For better or worse, the will of the voters is the very essence of legitimacy in our system. It may not be fair, or wise, or produce the best outcomes, but it is the definition of legitimate. And that's all you can ask of the process (which is not to say you can't be disappointed in the result). By contrast, a governor appointing a celebrity to the Senate and giving her the powers and advantages of incumbency is somewhat shadier. It's a thumb on the scales of the vote. Which gets into a larger argument, that vacancies should always be filled by special election. Letting governors choose successors is strange and distorting. Among other things, it discourages presidents from appointing members of Congress from states with governors of the opposite party (if you're Barack Obama you don't appoint Evan Bayh to anything, because the result is that you lose a vote in the Senate) and means that an unexpected death can result in a seat switching parties. Neither is a good outcome.
