...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.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
