Cabinet

[JoS]

Do you think the Cabinet should be elected? So you vote for President and Vice President, but then you also vote for the cabinet at the same time, rather than the President nominating people for Congress to approve?

I see pros and cons to this. One is that you avoid just having a cabinet full of cronies, and you may even get a mix of parties in the cabinet, which canbe good. The downside is though that it becomes political careerism potentially.

[ASHero]

I think that a smart enough president will be fully capable of selecting his/her own cabinet. Like good ol' Abe Lincoln.

[TheMason]

Good topic JoS.

I think an independent, appointed cabinet is one of the advantages of presidentialism over parliamentarianism. One of the things about a parliamentarian "cabinet" is that those positions are typically filled by members of parliament and are subject to party censure. This is problematic when the executive is relying upon ministers (or cabinet secretaries) to give independent advice and management of their respective agencies.

Furthermore, in Latin America they have experimented with "mixed" presidential systems where the cabinet is subject to congressional oversight beyond "advise & consent" and congressional censure. This has been empirically shown to cause a weak and instable government.

I believe that a popularly elected cabinet would present these problems and more. Specifically since that would mean that a cabinet member would have a fixed term. This would prevent any shake-ups in which underperforming cabinet members would have an incentive to stay rather than leave public life for private employment.

Secondly there is the question of the electorate. These are positions that require a technical knowledge, an expertise. Quite frankly I think the requirements necessary for a voter to make an informed decision would be so mind-numbingly complex and dull that there would be little participation. In short I think these races would be so manipulated that we would have worse government and administrations.

[TheMason]

At 3/27/08 10:56 AM, SevenSeize wrote: I enjoyed Mason's reply, and share pretty much the same logic, though I did not know that about Latin America (the mixed cabinet).

Yeah seven, I didn't know about it until this semester. I'm a TA for the Latin American Politics course (even though my research interest is Asia) and we've been going over presidentialism vs parliamentarianism.

[Christopherr]

At 3/27/08 03:22 AM, JoS wrote: I see pros and cons to this. One is that you avoid just having a cabinet full of cronies, and you may even get a mix of parties in the cabinet, which canbe good. The downside is though that it becomes political careerism potentially.

The cabinet is supposed to be chosen by the President for administrative reasons. You must remember that these people aren't just cronies, but instead political advisers. Bush doesn't know as much about war as he does economy. On the other hand, McCain doesn't know as much about economy as war. They both need advisers to make the best decisions they can.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

To much voting leads to voter apathy. People wouldn't vote on who was best suited for position as the amount of research etc required to make an informed decision for all positions i beyond most people so they'd just vote along roughly party lines so you'd end up with the same probelm.

Plus, if you did have a mix of ideologies in cabinet nothing would get done. Imagine if a fiscal conservative was in charge of the treasury ( or whatever you yanks have that's the equivalent) and a social liberal was in charge of social programs. Conflcit right there, and regardless of who was right, the entire nation would suffer as the argument would prevent anything from getting done.

[Slizor]

I think an independent, appointed cabinet is one of the advantages of presidentialism over parliamentarianism. One of the things about a parliamentarian "cabinet" is that those positions are typically filled by members of parliament and are subject to party censure. This is problematic when the executive is relying upon ministers (or cabinet secretaries) to give independent advice and management of their respective agencies.

I disagree with this point on the basis of knowledge of the foremost parliamentary system of government - Britain. While the cabinet is held to the principle of collective cabinet responsibility (which means if they don't agree with a decision and vote against it they are expected to resign from the cabinet (like Robin Cook did)) they are allowed to advise the Prime Minister freely during the time spent as a cabinet and express opposing opinions during this time - they offer independent advice.

This debate could be fun, so I'll throw this out there. Do you not think that a cabinet appointed by a single individual (rather than indirectly influenced by the opinions of the public) would be liable to be subject to ideological blindness? Would a cabinet selected by most individuals give a singular answer, rather than an array of answers? (This is slightly related to neo-conservatism in the current American administration.)

[n64kid]

I thought this topic was about milkshakes in rhode island.

Anyways, I agree entirely with Tri Nitro Toluene. 15 extra people to vote for leads to apathy. I might just check all the names that sound neat because I would never feel like looking deep into their run for position.
I also agree with him on the point that there could be too many conflicts. The reason why the loser of the presidential election no longer becomes vice president is because nothing got done. The president should pick their own cabinet himself/herself (ooo hidden agenda?) to help and advise.

[jew193]

the cabinet is merely a group of advisors that the president goes to when he has a dilemma that he alone cannot find the answer for. so electing someone who the president might not like would be utterly pointless because nobody is going to ask for advice from a person who they do not respect and look up to in some form

[MortifiedPenguins]

There advisors.

They have no mention in the Constitution and can't exert power( though some may figure that thier personalities exert the president's influence)

For them to be voted on, they need to be added in into the Constitution first.

Since that will never happen, there's really no point to voting for them.

[TheMason]

At 3/27/08 08:19 PM, Slizor wrote: I disagree with this point on the basis of knowledge of the foremost parliamentary system of government - Britain. While the cabinet is held to the principle of collective cabinet responsibility (which means if they don't agree with a decision and vote against it they are expected to resign from the cabinet (like Robin Cook did)) they are allowed to advise the Prime Minister freely during the time spent as a cabinet and express opposing opinions during this time - they offer independent advice.

The other side of this is that the prime minister is, while the head of government, first among equals in terms of the other ministers. Therefore the hierarchy is not as clearly defined.

Would a cabinet selected by most individuals give a singular answer, rather than an array of answers? (This is slightly related to neo-conservatism in the current American administration.)

Actually, cabinets are usually highly contentious. JFK's cabinet during the Cuban Missile Crisis produced an array of possibilites. And, to use the current administration, there has been some contention (remember Colin Powell?). In short; very few cabinets fall in line and adopt a single "yes" man answer/option.