Should "Cabinet" posts should be elected, not appointed?

[FrodosPet]

Accountability to Americans:

Rather than having the President nominate the heads of the Executive branch departments, with congressional approval, would having them democratically elected help make them more accountable to the people?

Seems to me that they are too insulated by being appointed positions.

[jonthebru]

1. no

[Renew Deal]

2. No

The point of the Cabinet is to fulfill a presidents agenda. They are basically department heads. The last thing you want is these people working against the president.

Imagine the president wants to diffuse a war while the Secretary of State is working on getting into one? That's not going to work well.

[Still Sensible]

3. Absolutely not

it is hard enough to run the executive branch without turning the departments into political footballs.

[BainsBane]

18. +1

[question everything]

26. +2 (nt)

[struggle4progress]

27. +

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. NO

We have to suffer through too many elections as it is.

[Tx4obama]

5. No.

They are part of The President's administration, therefore he should be the one that appoints him.

[Xipe Totec]

6. Only during Republican Administrations. nt

[Sekhmets Daughter]

14. The perfect response!

[Lucinda]

7. A billion times no.

I do see your point, but we don't need anymore infighting in the Executive branch than we already have...

[Honeycombe8]

8. No. The last thing we need is MORE people worried about votes,

funding campaigns, and pandering to the voting public.

[derby378]

9. The President essentially IS the Executive Branch

That's one big reason why Presidential elections are so important. He (or she) needs some leeway to create a team that will help implement the White House agenda for the next four years.

[Skittles]

10. no

[immoderate]

11. Can oil companies finance Interior? Defense contractors support their own Secretary?

Maybe not terribly worse than now, but who will vet these people? Where will their campaign money come from? Will voters be able to evaluate all the candidates? They lie, y'know.

Not good on it's face.

--imm

[The Wielding Truth]

12. No.The elected president needs to have a trusted team around him or her for support.

[Kaleva]

13. No

[architect359]

15. Oh, hell NO. n/t

[Historic NY]

16. no

[libdem4life]

17. They aren't as powerful as it seems because the underlying federal bureaucracy they head does not

change as much. It's a kind of balance of power.

[JackRiddler]

19. In a sense: We should have a parliamentary system.

[emulatorloo]

20. No.

[graham4anything]

21. no. The President needs to work with people they trust otherwise even more gridlock

[Rowdyboy]

22. Probably the worst idea I've ever seen suggested on DU...Congrats for that honor....

It reeks.

[Nye Bevan]

23. I like this kind of creative thinking.

But in this case I have to agree with the majority opinion.

[Whisp]

24. gawd no, what are you smoking

because I don't want any of that.

[FrodosPet]

32. Maybe that is the problem

I quit a few months ago. Perhaps some Sour Diesel or O.G. Kush would give me better ideas (like I could ever afford the goods).

I keep reading that we need more democracy and accountability from our leaders. So what positions that are not currently elected should be?

[dsc]

25. The one position I would consider having elected is Attorney General

that could use some independence.

[liberalhistorian]

28. Hell no, for all of the reasons stated

by others here. But also, you would need a Constitutional Amendment in order to implement that idea, and that just ain't gonna happen, fortunately.

[napi21]

29. NO! The public doesn't know who's qualified and who's not. You'd end up with

Dept. heads who arew simply good ZBSers instead of knowing what they're doing in the job.

[Thinkingabout]

30. The president has to have trusted cabinet members and maybe without approval of Congress

With the appointment of Supreme Court and perhaps Defense and a few others but he needs a team effort surrounding the president.

[enlightenment]

31. Nevada elects all members of the executive branch -

so we often have a mixed bag, politically.

To a degree, it is a workable situation, particularly since the state has a tendency to vote for Republican governors (generally by very narrow margins). Currently, the governor and lt. governor are Republican and the remaining members of the branch are Democrats.

I've never noticed that it caused undue gridlock, but I could see where it would be more of an issue in the much more politically charged atmosphere of national politics. The biggest issue is informed voters. It's a problem at the state level and would be nightmarish at the national level.

Interesting concept, but I don't think it would work very well.

[Moonwalk]

33. In agreement with all of the above...no. It's all part and parcel with electing a president...

...that vote says you trust him to pick the people best qualified to help him achieve what he's promised he'll achieve. Granted, some if not a lot of those getting positions may be getting them as favors or consolations prizes for supporting the president or not interfering or even for "losing" with grace. BUT, this is still better than having voters elect people for positions they (the voters) know little about and/or know nothing about what makes someone a good, qualified candidate for that position (what does the Secretary of State do and what should be the minimum qualifications for that job? What past experiences should one have to be a good Secretary of State?)

It's bad enough that the office of President is a popularity contest that can pretty much be bought and sold rather than one where candidates have to--ought to--pass certain intelligence and psychology tests before they're even allowed to campaign. Let's not expand that to the President's cabinet and have him working with not only those he might not get along with, not only those pushing their own agenda (not his, the one we voted for), but have him scrambling to patch up the gross mistakes made by unqualified people voted in for bad or stupid reasons.

I mean, imagine if we'd had people vote for Obama's Cabinet after the election of 2008. Sarah Palin was hugely popular at the time. Can you imagine if she'd been voted in as Secretary of State over Hilary? Yikes! Wake me when that nightmare is over. Sorry. Bad idea all the way round.

[RomneyLies]

34. HELL to the NO! n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

35. Absolutely not.

[Justin_Beach]

36. This should never happen, it would break government

I'm trying to imagine the cabinet meetings with the head of every department trying to score points for their (personal) team, trying to get extra dollars and trying to grab headlines - even at the expense of the President and the other cabinet heads.

Imagine the Secretary of Defense, for example, what if peace breaks out? It would look bad on his/her record - "Don't reelect the do nothing Secretary of Defense'.

It is one of the things that the US system and the Parliamentary system have in common, and for good reason. The chief executive needs a team, one he can trust and one that will carry out his/her instructions. Remember that no matter what these people do it falls on the President's shoulders when the next election rolls around, how is that going to work if they aren't answerable to the President?

[Hekate]

37. No

[TeamPooka]

38. worst question ever....

says Comic Book Guy.

[Chan790]

39. No.

I love easy questions.

[intaglio]

40. No

Imagine the length of Election ballots ...

[Warren Stupidity]

41. No.

[hack89]

42. No. nt

[Paladin]

43. No. (nt)

[WinkyDink]

44. No. Don't be stupid. And don't put quote marks around "Cabinet."

[hobbit709]

45. no. For a start it would involve amending the Constitution.

[cali]

46. absolutely not.

there's a host of reasons why this is not a good idea. First and foremost in my mind, is that it makes it pointless to have a president.