Direct Election of the President's Cabinet?

[ck4829]

This is an idea I have been thinking of recently.

If Bush has taught us anything, it's that "Cronies and Donor run Government = Bad Government".

Here is what I thinking of:

President gets inaugurated.

Majority Party and Minority Party(ies) nominate candidates for the President's Cabinet and the ones from the previous term can also stay IF they get reelected.

Then it goes back to the people 2-3 weeks later in the form of a special election. A majority vote will be enough.

Here's the breakdown of who will be elected by the People:

Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Homeland Security

No more cronies! Let's push for Direct Election of the Cabinet!

[malaise]

1. You really need a parliamentary system

where the majority of Cabinet positions must be held by elected Members of Parliament (Legislature). Your system facilitates corruption since none of the Cabinet members are accountable to citizens of the US. The president just picks his cronies and since they are beholden to lobbyists, it's the perfect plutocracy.

[ck4829]

2. What do you suggest then?

I think that the current system is falling apart and needs serious reform, maybe it needs it's own thread, or even it's own forum.

[malaise]

7. You are correct

The problem is that both the Presidential and Parliamentary systems need urgent reforms. Neither is really accountable to the people because politicians are beholden to special interests. Neo-liberalism is destroying the world's citizens while a few get rich.

That said, in the Westminster Parliamentary system, the majority of Cabinet members must be elected by the people in constituencies so we can vote them out when they are caught with their hands in the till. Additionally we can force snap elections as we have no fixed election date.

The sad reality is that corporations have more power than governments these days so people will have to take back their governments and weaken the power of corporations. Unless we do that, most reforms will still be more form than content.

[Bill McBlueState]

9. the parliamentary system

Is it by law or by custom that the Cabinet in the Parliamentary system must be made up of MPs?

[malaise]

11. Westminster Parliamentary is interesting

in that in England there is a recently codified Bill of Rights but everything else is covered by Parliamentary Supremacy via Statute Law, Common Law or precedent/custom. In the export model, the Constitution is Supreme and many of these features are entrenched and require a 2/3s majority to remove.

[AllegroRondo]

3. It would take a constitutional amendment

which both parties have no interest of passing.

[cali]

4. Bad idea

Cabinet choice should be the President's perogative. First of all, it's the way our gov't is designed. A president should have the ability to choose cab officials who he/she can work with. These officials work for the president and carry out his/her agenda. Can you imagine a President Bernie Sanders having a Rumsfeld type as Sec of Defense? What a fucking mess that would be.

[LostinVA]

5. Exactly why the election of VP was changed

It was a mess!

[Texacrat]

12. Well we did come very close to having a Pres Bush and a VP Lieberman.

...

[malaise]

8. That's not how it works in Parliamentary systems

The leader of the party that wins selects the majority of his/her cabinet from its elected members, so there is no chance of opposition reps becoming Cabinet members. Others are selected from business, education, whatever.

Still unless special interests are removed from the process there will be no systemic change.

[Burning Water]

6. Truly horrible idea

Talk about chaos!!!

No discipline whatever, and everybody out to protect her own turf.

Nope. Elect a President to handle the executive branch. Let him make his choices to carry out his, not their, policies. Hold him accountable at the polls for the results.

OK, the American people made a bad choice, but the system isn't broken, it's performing exactly the way it was designed to. IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT. The American people will correct their mistakes in elections 2006 & 2008, and if they don't, then obviously they are satisfied with the results.

I'm assuming honest elections here, for the sake of argument. But, if the elections for President aren't honest, why should we expect the elections for cabinet members to be??

[Coastie for Truth]

10. We did that in my "birth state"

Background - we have a Constitutional Provision that requires the question of a Constitutional Convention to be submitted to the voters periodically (every 50 or 60 years? - I don't remember the frequency - besides who actually reads state constitutions, anyway). Here's a link to the history .

Well, in the 1968 Convention we amended the Constitution to "remove the Cabinet from politics by making them elective." (Note - all of the members of the cabinet are specified by title in the State Constitution)
:rofl: :rofl:

Instead of the political hacks and general mill run of incompetents being appointed by the Governor - they ran for office -- and still got in.

The state hasn't had a good Attorney general since appointed AG Iz Packel and a good insurance commissioner since appointed commissioner Herb Denenberg.

My take - the quality went down.

I know we DUers are generally unhappy with Rummie and Condi and Chertoff and Snow etc., etc., -- but the thing to do is go for a Parliamentary system -- and do it right.

[WI_DEM]

13. Don't agree

This would hamper any president democrat or republican.

[ISUGRADIA]

14. Horrible Idea

15 new offices on the ballot. a majority of the electorate barely votes for president. no way they'd keep 30+ candidates straight.