WI: US cabinet members elected

How might this come about and what might be the consequences? I think the most workable solution would be an inclusion that the heads of the Federal Executive Departments (as the Constitution refers to the Cabinet) be elected, in the 12th Amendment.

Now on the one hand, as they would now be elected, one might think they would be more independent of the President, and, thus, more likely to butt heads/becut out of the 'inner circle.' On the other hand, they would likely be elected as a larger ticket, instead of just Prez/VP, and would not be subject to Senatorial confirmation, which means thet may likely be more closely tied to the President, since its more likely for the Electors to be casting their votes on a party line than it is for the Prez to have the Senate totally in line with his wishes. This scenario would also result in a weaker Senate (and having the members elected by the Senate itself is probably the least likely to work, as then the President would have no connection to 'his'cabinet).
 
How might this come about and what might be the consequences? I think the most workable solution would be an inclusion that the heads of the Federal Executive Departments (as the Constitution refers to the Cabinet) be elected, in the 12th Amendment.

Now on the one hand, as they would now be elected, one might think they would be more independent of the President, and, thus, more likely to butt heads/becut out of the 'inner circle.' On the other hand, they would likely be elected as a larger ticket, instead of just Prez/VP, and would not be subject to Senatorial confirmation, which means thet may likely be more closely tied to the President, since its more likely for the Electors to be casting their votes on a party line than it is for the Prez to have the Senate totally in line with his wishes. This scenario would also result in a weaker Senate (and having the members elected by the Senate itself is probably the least likely to work, as then the President would have no connection to 'his'cabinet).

Interesting but what would be the reason for causing the USA to shift to this scenario? What causes Americans or the elites to say "we need this change"? One professor once told me (paraphrasing)- Politics is like evolution, everything can be traced to something before it, nothing springs out of a vacuum. And anything that works will develop and "evolve" and anything that doesn't will "die without children".
 
What if the cabinet had to be made up of-
A) politicians who have held more than two years in office or military personnel who have rose to the rank of Captain?
B) the cabinet ratio should be similar to the popular vote ~ for example in 2000 George W. Bush would only be able to appoint 47.87% to Republican politicians while Democratic hold majority with 51.30%
 
Interesting but what would be the reason for causing the USA to shift to this scenario? What causes Americans or the elites to say "we need this change"? One professor once told me (paraphrasing)- Politics is like evolution, everything can be traced to something before it, nothing springs out of a vacuum. And anything that works will develop and "evolve" and anything that doesn't will "die without children".

I like this professor, where'd you go to college?
 
The partisan lines today almost make this plausible, especially if Cruz wins. Elected cabinets would force explicit compromise between various factions of parties, and weaken the president (since the secretaries would presumably have constitutional power beyond their current advisory role). Cruz very much represents a faction within the party, so everyone else would want power sharing.

I say almost, because the mood today is also to pretend that your current political philosophy is the exact culmination of the words of the Founding Fathers and of Lincoln, and no explicit revisions are required.
 
The partisan lines today almost make this plausible, especially if Cruz wins. Elected cabinets would force explicit compromise between various factions of parties, and weaken the president (since the secretaries would presumably have constitutional power beyond their current advisory role). Cruz very much represents a faction within the party, so everyone else would want power sharing.

I say almost, because the mood today is also to pretend that your current political philosophy is the exact culmination of the words of the Founding Fathers and of Lincoln, and no explicit revisions are required.

I disagree with your general analysis of the present day, while also encouraging you to focus such discussions in the forums dedicated to present-day politics.
 
How might this come about and what might be the consequences? I think the most workable solution would be an inclusion that the heads of the Federal Executive Departments (as the Constitution refers to the Cabinet) be elected, in the 12th Amendment.

Now on the one hand, as they would now be elected, one might think they would be more independent of the President, and, thus, more likely to butt heads/becut out of the 'inner circle.' On the other hand, they would likely be elected as a larger ticket, instead of just Prez/VP, and would not be subject to Senatorial confirmation, which means thet may likely be more closely tied to the President, since its more likely for the Electors to be casting their votes on a party line than it is for the Prez to have the Senate totally in line with his wishes. This scenario would also result in a weaker Senate (and having the members elected by the Senate itself is probably the least likely to work, as then the President would have no connection to 'his'cabinet).

Interesting but what would be the reason for causing the USA to shift to this scenario? What causes Americans or the elites to say "we need this change"? One professor once told me (paraphrasing)- Politics is like evolution, everything can be traced to something before it, nothing springs out of a vacuum. And anything that works will develop and "evolve" and anything that doesn't will "die without children".

The only way I could see this evolving was if some president had an infamously cronyist and corrupt cabinet. The cronyism of Bush and the corruption of Grant, together and worsened.

Thus it would be a strike at the power of the Presidency.

I SUSPECT that the end result would be that the 'heads of departments' (the word 'cabinet' nowhere appears in the Constitution) would be ignored, and the President would appoint (informally, at first) a replacement group of people who functioned largely as Cabinet Secretaries had done.

Which would end up making the situation worse, not better.
 

jahenders

Banned
I think this could have evolved as an attempt to limit presidential power and provide some consistency (between presidents) in the departments.

You could have cabinet positions elected for 4 years, but offset by 2 years from Presidential terms. So, Obama would have taken office with a cabinet elected in 2006 and would have gotten a new one in 2010, etc.

This would definitely be a problem for the president as his cabinet wouldn't feel they work for him so much, but that could be a good thing.

You could have a provision where the president could call for impeachment of a cabinet member under certain conditions as a counterweight.

How might this come about and what might be the consequences? I think the most workable solution would be an inclusion that the heads of the Federal Executive Departments (as the Constitution refers to the Cabinet) be elected, in the 12th Amendment.

Now on the one hand, as they would now be elected, one might think they would be more independent of the President, and, thus, more likely to butt heads/becut out of the 'inner circle.' On the other hand, they would likely be elected as a larger ticket, instead of just Prez/VP, and would not be subject to Senatorial confirmation, which means thet may likely be more closely tied to the President, since its more likely for the Electors to be casting their votes on a party line than it is for the Prez to have the Senate totally in line with his wishes. This scenario would also result in a weaker Senate (and having the members elected by the Senate itself is probably the least likely to work, as then the President would have no connection to 'his'cabinet).
 
in several states

This is already the practice in several states. A democrat was elected governor in Louisiana, while a republican was elected lieutenant governor. And in Kentucky a republican was elected governor while a democrat was elected attorney general
 
I suppose it could have been an extension of the original idea of the runner-up in the Presidential election becoming Vice-President, with the next being Secretary of State, Secretary of the Interior, etc.

Then evolving in the same way as the election of President & Vice-President with a whole 'Cabinet Slate' being elected. Which if the Cabinet offices are directly elected might mean that they are no longer subject to confirmation by Congress.
 
I suppose it could have been an extension of the original idea of the runner-up in the Presidential election becoming Vice-President, with the next being Secretary of State, Secretary of the Interior, etc.

Then evolving in the same way as the election of President & Vice-President with a whole 'Cabinet Slate' being elected. Which if the Cabinet offices are directly elected might mean that they are no longer subject to confirmation by Congress.

Which could also butterfly the electability question from Presidential campaigns. Hillary Clinton could say "look of course I'm electable. I've been elected as Secretary of State twice."
 

jahenders

Banned
Possibly. Also, it would considerably change who held those offices. The people holding them would have to be people who were moderate and personable enough to actually get elected.

Which could also butterfly the electability question from Presidential campaigns. Hillary Clinton could say "look of course I'm electable. I've been elected as Secretary of State twice."
 
Possibly. Also, it would considerably change who held those offices. The people holding them would have to be people who were moderate and personable enough to actually get elected.

Exactly. It would turn the Cabinet into Presidential proving ground. That might not be a bad thing.
 
How has this evolved in the states that have elected cabinets? Has any state started with an appointed cabinet and then switched to an elected cabinet later? And how has it affected the politics? I haven't heard of any problems or benefits of having elected cabinet members.
 
Sounds like a path to generational gridlock.

Have you considered a constitutional requirement that candidates announce their proposed cabinet at least 60 days in advance of Election Day? This way, the entire country would know more about the Nominee's policies and approach, as well as what deals may have been struck.
 
Exactly. It would turn the Cabinet into Presidential proving ground. That might not be a bad thing.

Originally it was. The Secretary of State was originally believed to be the proving ground of future presidents, not the Senate or governorship (or being VP); people truly believed Jefferson was by all rights next in line to Washington, not Adams, when it came to being elected "next time". Six secretaries of State have gone on to be president. Jefferson was replaced by his, Madison, who was replaced by his- Monroe, who was replaced by his- John Quincy Adams. You also have Van Buren (sec of state to Jackson who defeated Adams breaking the chain), then not another til Buchanan. Two other presidents were cabinet members, Herbert Hoover in Commerce and Taft as Secretary of War (people often confuse in thinking he was Roosevelt's VP because Teddy endorsed him in 1908 to carry on his legacy). In addition to being State, Monroe spent time as Sec of War. Many of them had sub-cabinet positions in departments, such as Taft as Solicitor General, and both Roosevelts as Assistant Secretaries of the Navy. If you count diplomats and federal appointees needing Congressional approval you get even more presidents- 8 were ambassadors (Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, JQ Adams, Van Buren, W. Harrison, J Buchanan, and Bush I), with Arthur as port collector for New York.

So 8 out of 43 presidents (Cleveland is counted twice, so while Obama is number 44, he's actually the 43rd person to hold the office) were secretaries, that's almost 19%; add in the sub-cabinet, ambassadors, and federal office holders all needing Congressional approval (subtracting duplicate names)- I believe that's 14 and you have 32.5% of all Presidents were once holding an office that needed Congressional approval. 12 Senators have become President (only 3 while sitting in office), and several of those went through the Cabinet before becoming Pres. Only 5 Congressmen have become Pres without first being a Senator or Governor. 17 Governors have become Pres, but one had also been a Senator, and several were VP or Secretaries before going on to be President. 14 VPs went on to being President, only 5 of which were due to being elected; so really being a Cabinet position in the govt is your best bet to becoming President in OTL.
 
Top