• It has been tried and works

    The US uses a presidential system and directly-ish-elects their president. However, the Defence Secretary, Treasury Secretary, etc are appointed by the president upon majority vote by Senate (going off memory here - please correct me if I'm wrong). Switzerland is a collegial republic (shared executive power across 7 councillors) appointed by the legislature (being co-equal is the take-away) and Texas directly elects many of its executives (governor, lt governor, attorney-general, etc), though Texas reserves the veto to the governor or the lt governor when governor is away. Why not elect all or the major executives nationally rather than having them appointed by the president who has favours to return for his election? While Senate approval is a safeguard, it would be better If we allowed elections in that. Otherwise, why not just have the president appointed too? Also, the veto power should be diffused to entire cabinet. Majority vote of the cabinet (8 out of 15) would be required to veto a bill. Candidates would face the public directly and have to explain why a law degree makes that person a good candidate for the post of Education Secretary rather than an M.Ed, for instance.

  • No responses have been submitted.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.