HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Should "Cabinet"...

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:54 PM

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

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.

46 replies, 2694 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply Should "Cabinet" posts should be elected, not appointed? (Original post)
FrodosPet Nov 2012 OP
jonthebru Nov 2012 #1
Renew Deal Nov 2012 #2
Still Sensible Nov 2012 #3
BainsBane Nov 2012 #18
question everything Nov 2012 #26
LineLineReply +
struggle4progress Nov 2012 #27
TheCowsCameHome Nov 2012 #4
Tx4obama Nov 2012 #5
Xipe Totec Nov 2012 #6
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #14
Lucinda Nov 2012 #7
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #8
derby378 Nov 2012 #9
Skittles Nov 2012 #10
immoderate Nov 2012 #11
The Wielding Truth Nov 2012 #12
Kaleva Nov 2012 #13
architect359 Nov 2012 #15
Historic NY Nov 2012 #16
libdem4life Nov 2012 #17
JackRiddler Nov 2012 #19
emulatorloo Nov 2012 #20
graham4anything Nov 2012 #21
Rowdyboy Nov 2012 #22
Nye Bevan Nov 2012 #23
Whisp Nov 2012 #24
FrodosPet Nov 2012 #32
dsc Nov 2012 #25
liberalhistorian Nov 2012 #28
napi21 Nov 2012 #29
Thinkingabout Nov 2012 #30
enlightenment Nov 2012 #31
Moonwalk Nov 2012 #33
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #34
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2012 #35
Justin_Beach Nov 2012 #36
Hekate Nov 2012 #37
TeamPooka Nov 2012 #38
Chan790 Nov 2012 #39
intaglio Nov 2012 #40
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #41
hack89 Nov 2012 #42
Paladin Nov 2012 #43
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #44
hobbit709 Nov 2012 #45
cali Nov 2012 #46

Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:55 PM

1. no

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:57 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:58 PM

3. Absolutely not

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Still Sensible (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:39 PM

18. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #18)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:36 PM

26. +2 (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Still Sensible (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:40 PM

27. +

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:58 PM

4. NO

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:58 PM

5. No.


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



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:59 PM

6. Only during Republican Administrations. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:06 PM

14. The perfect response!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:00 PM

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:01 PM

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

funding campaigns, and pandering to the voting public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:02 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:03 PM

10. no

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:05 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:06 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:06 PM

13. No

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:07 PM

15. Oh, hell NO. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:10 PM

16. no

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:12 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:47 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:52 PM

20. No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:00 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:18 PM

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

It reeks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:26 PM

23. I like this kind of creative thinking.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:34 PM

24. gawd no, what are you smoking

 

because I don't want any of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #24)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 12:09 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:35 PM

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

that could use some independence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:42 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:44 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:45 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 12:06 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 12:39 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 12:40 AM

34. HELL to the NO! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 12:42 AM

35. Absolutely not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:30 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:32 AM

37. No

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:40 AM

38. worst question ever....

says Comic Book Guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:43 AM

39. No.

I love easy questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:22 AM

40. No

Imagine the length of Election ballots ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 06:31 AM

41. No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 06:34 AM

42. No. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 07:14 AM

43. No. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 07:15 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 07:20 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 07:52 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread