According to Zou et al. 2005, the elastic estimator has the follow formulation.
$$ \beta_{elastic} = \arg \min_{\beta} 1/2n\|Y - X\beta\|_2^2 + \alpha \lambda\|z\|_1 + (1-\alpha)\lambda/2 \|z\|_2^2$$
I understand that the elastic net takes the advantage of both the ridge and lasso regression in the penalty term. But I don't understand why the $l_1$-norm and $l_2$-squared norm should interacts linearly via $\alpha$. Does it make more sense to use: $$ \beta_{new} = \arg \min_{\beta} 1/2n\|Y - X\beta\|_2^2 + \alpha \lambda\|z\|_1 + (1-\alpha)\lambda \|z\|_2$$
p.s. I understand that adding the coefficient $\frac{1}{2}$ is a equivalent formulation, but I don't understand why we combine a norm and a squared-norm for the elastic net penalty.
For ridge regression, the following two formulations are equivalent via their constrained formulations, or KKT condition:
$$ \beta_{ridge1} = \arg \min_{\beta} 1/2n\|Y-X\beta\|_2^2 + \lambda\|\beta\|_2^2 $$
$$ \beta_{ridge2} = \arg \min_{\beta} 1/2n\|Y-X\beta\|_2^2 + \lambda\|\beta\|_2 $$
My question is that why we use $\beta_{ridge1}$ instead of $\beta_{ridge2}$ for the elastic net penalty?