Should federal cabinet members (other than POTUS) be elected?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

A thought struck me today. In the vast majority of states, power is invested in several elected statewide officials, rather than solely in the Governor. In some cases, this comes down to states electing really very obscure cabinet ministers - down to stuff like Agriculture Commisioner.

By contrast the federal government only has one elected figure (+ his veep) who has to appoint the rest of his team, normally by slogging them through the Senate. If other positions in the cabinet - the SoS, the Veep, the DoD Sec and AG for starters - were also separately elected figures, how would this affect the function of the executive branch?

[Türkisblau]

I believe that it was designed that way as to not divide the executive branch. Imagine an entrenched incumbent Federal Treasurer who was able to stop many of the initiatives of an elected president - it just wouldn't work out very well.

So the president is thus able to create a team that will work for him, but the people still (indirectly) put a check on the process through their Senator's vote to deny/confirm that appointment. I think the system is just fine.

[Del Tachi]

I believe that it was designed that way as to not divide the executive branch. Imagine an entrenched incumbent Federal Treasurer who was able to stop many of the initiatives of an elected president - it just wouldn't work out very well.

So the president is thus able to create a team that will work for him, but the people still (indirectly) put a check on the process through their Senator's vote to deny/confirm that appointment. I think the system is just fine.

Yeah, ideally state governments should model themselves off of the Feds in this instance. 

[TDAS04]

No, I agree with what Turkisblau said.  The executive branch would be too divided and potentially dysfunctional.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Well, there's a reason we decided to stop doing this with the office of Vice President.

[ElectionsGuy]

While that idea can sound attractive, that would be a mess for elections. Having one election for the executive branch is enough, I think, along with Congress + State and Local.

[Del Tachi]

While that idea can sound attractive, that would be a mess for elections. Having one election for the executive branch is enough, I think, along with Congress + State and Local.

Yeah this too. 

I would hate to see what campaigns for "Chief Administrator of the EPA" would be like. 

Believe it or not, some things are actually better left up to bureaucrats rather than politicians. 

[politicallefty]

No, but as a change to the current setup, I would prefer the President be forced to draw the Cabinet from Congress (and members be able to serve both offices simultaneously).

[Türkisblau]

No, but as a change to the current setup, I would prefer the President be forced to draw the Cabinet from Congress (and members be able to serve both offices simultaneously).

So more of a parliamentary system then? I personally like that the cabinet members are usually experts or very experienced in their respective fields and can be political outsiders.

[IceSpear]

Yeah, ideally state governments should model themselves off of the Feds in this instance. 

This.

[Murica!]

I think the way it should work is this: Towns(and the areas around them) elect councils(which can be recalled.) These Councils then elect one member to the National Federation(which is also able to be recalled.) The National Federation then elects a Central Committee which acts as the cabinet members(and yes they can be recalled by the National Federation.)

[Mister Mets]

The website Slate had a series suggesting changes to the consituttions. One was making Attorney General an elected position, to better be the people's lawyer and keep the President in check.

http://hive.slate.com/hive/how-can-we-fix-constitution/article/picking-the-peoples-lawyer

This plan has some disadvantages, as it forces Attorney Generals to be able to wage national campaigns. And it creates a launching pad for the White House that is limited to lawyers.

Cabinet members seem to be like being able to serve partial terms, something that isn't as appropriate in elected office. There's the potential for conflict, especially with overlapping offices held by different parties (A Republican Secretary of State, and a Democratic Secretary of Defense, A Republican Secretary of Treasury and a Democratic Secretary of Commerce.) It's also a bit restrictive to keep the offices only for those who wage national campaigns for it. Right now, the same person might be considered for multiple cabinet positions.

I did wonder who would have won Attorney General elections, and how that would have changed things.
Geraldine Ferraro might have been elected to the office in 1986, as a former prosecutor with national name recognition. Or the same things that doomed her senate campaigns could have doomed this. We likely would have had a milestone of the first woman to hold national office by now.
If John Kerry had run and won in 1998 (he had the resume and it was a cycle in which Democrats were competitive) he probably would have been Gore's running mate.
2002 would almost certainly have seen the election of Rudy Giuliani to the office.
2006, assuming similar political circumstances, would have been a very Democratic year. I could easily imagine a tough primary fight between Eliot Spitzer and John Edwards.
Charlie Crist might have stayed with the Republican party, if this was an office he could have run for in 2010. Or he might have lost to a tea party affiliated challenger (not sure who.)
2014 would likely have seen the reelection of the Republican incumbent.