Appointed vs Elected

[fast]

During the recent election, a question was posed that explained that a 'Yes' vote will require the Superintendent of Education be appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Senate, while a 'No' vote maintains the current method of electing a Superintendent of Education.

While the idea of keeping power in the hands of the people is enticing, the fact that everyone's vote is weighted the same is wholly unfair. At first glance, that might sound silly, that is, until it's understood and accepted that not everyone's vote ought to be treated equally. That all cases should be treated the same is a myth. Fairness isn't rooted in treating all cases the same but instead in treating all like cases alike and unlike cases unlike. A seemingly subtle difference, yet important--much like the difference between being assumed innocent until proven guilty is subtly yet mighty different than being presumed innocent until proven guilty.

An analogy is perhaps in order. While it may be so that we should treat students fairly, that is not to say their grades should all be the same. It's not unfair to give a failing student who didn't study an 'F'. When the grade given isn't indicative of the grade earned, unfairness rears its ugly head.

Not everyone puts in the time, work, nor energy to arrive at a reasoned vote decision--decisions that not only affect me and mine but all our neighbors and families. We don't even have a test for determining how votes should be weighted, so it doesn't matter how much you try to come up with the best decision possible, you're going to be competing with an overwhelming number of voters that are abominably clueless --and that's partly why we (in the US) are a Republic that rely on certain members of government to make the informed reasoned decisions that have our best interests at heart.

That being said, I still feel caution is in order, as although it may very well be the case that certain elected positions should be appointed positions instead, that likely doesn't lend itself to all positions. So, how in the world are we to decide which positions are better off being elected vs appointed?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

For specialized positions, appointments are better. The point of democracy is to try and elect competent people into leadership positions who will be able to make good and informed decisions about who will best fill the roles requiring specialized knowledge and abilities.

 

[skepticalbip]

It is a real trade-off. It is a rare voter that even knows the names of most of the people they vote for much less knowing anything significant about the qualifications, abilities, and positions of those people. However, allowing a small group to appoint those people to office can lead to authoritarian control.

Most of the population can not name their county commissioners, city council members, state attorney general, etc..

 

[southernhybrid]

I tend to agree that some positions are better being done by appointment.

 

[Gun Nut]

I think this is an interesting topic. You make good points, but it is hard to tell people that their opinion matters less than another's, even though it actually might.

While it may be so that we should treat students fairly, that is not to say their grades should all be the same. It's not unfair to give a failing student who didn't study an 'F'. When the grade given isn't indicative of the grade earned, unfairness rears its ugly head.

Bad analogy, though... and I should know because I make the worse ones.
Teachers don't "give out grades", they calculate grades and keep track of the rolling score.
The way they measure performance is "fair", in that it is (should be) consistent... fairness is in the process, not the outcome.

We already have a system that "unequally" tallies votes. It's the electoral college. It is currently outdated how votes are weighed with that system. Instead of being based on population density, maybe it should be made based on education level... or a civics test.
.. in which case, my vote would be worth 1/10th of what it is currently worth. lol. But I do believe that as a general rule, people that know more about a topic should be considered more than people that don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

 

[Gun Nut]

For specialized positions, appointments are better. The point of democracy is to try and elect competent people into leadership positions who will be able to make good and informed decisions about who will best fill the roles requiring specialized knowledge and abilities.

True, to a point. At the extreme, we elect a President... The President then proceeds to write all of the laws and appoint every position. That's called having a King. So, somewhere the line has to be drawn.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I hate voting for Judges. We vote for local courts and Supreme Court in Ohio. It is nuts. Do we vote for doctors?

I'm also uncertain what fast's point is. IE limit the vote to smart people or just limit the vote for some positions to smart people... what are smart people?

 

[TV and credit cards]

With elected officials down to the township level, it can be difficult to gather information on some of these yokels. I’m hard pressed to find so much as a LinkedIn page on some of them.

I’ve yet to hear a good argument for having elected officials down to this level. I think appointed county officials will do just fine.
Honestly, I’ve found myself occasionally having to just pick at random when voting. This past election, I forgot my cheat sheet I made to take with me to the polls. With no political affiliation, I was in a bit of a pickle when I got to the judges. I couldn’t remember who I decided on.

I like the idea of having to take a test just prior to the upcoming election. Your test score is the value of your vote.

 

[skepticalbip]

I hate voting for Judges. We vote for local courts and Supreme Court in Ohio. It is nuts. Do we vote for doctors?

I'm also uncertain what fast's point is. IE limit the vote to smart people or just limit the vote for some positions to smart people... what are smart people?

The old method of qualifying voters through tests to see if they understand our structure of government and are literate has been outlawed.

So my suggestion has been to change the ballots. Rather than listing the people running for each office along with their political party affiliation, maybe have all the offices being voted on in one column then all the people running for office (without specifying their political party) alphabetically in a separate column along with the names of some actors and old dead politicians. Have the voter match each office with the name of the person they want to hold it.

This should, at least, indicate that the voter knew enough about the issues and politicians running to make a simi-informed choice. Someone selecting John Wayne for county sheriff would have their vote but it wouldn't dilute the vote of those who knew something about the actual candidates and their qualifications.

 

[George S]

I got to vote in South Carolina for the first time. An elected official is subject to losing his job if he displeases the public-at-large. An appointed official is subject to losing his job if he displeases one person elected by the public-at-large. In the former case the mob decides; in the latter we must trust the judgment of that one man. Perhaps there should be a test instead of an election. A judgment by a panel of experts expert in reading people. Seeing past self-interest. Perhaps an AI.

<off topic> AI ... the "Plastics!" of today. (That's a movie reference.)

 

[WAB]

I say there should be a lottery. If you've never committed a felony (or have never been caught), and if you can spell "Mississippi" three times in a row without a mistake, you're eligible. If you're name is drawn, you're the President for a week. You have three sick days and four days paid vacation.

 

[Tigers!]

The old method of qualifying voters through tests to see if they understand our structure of government and are literate has been outlawed.

The old school way to do voter suppression,

 

[Tigers!]

If you're name is drawn, you're the President for a week. You have three sick days and four days paid vacation.

Sounds just like my current job so I'll pass.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I hate voting for Judges. We vote for local courts and Supreme Court in Ohio. It is nuts. Do we vote for doctors?

I'm also uncertain what fast's point is. IE limit the vote to smart people or just limit the vote for some positions to smart people... what are smart people?

Yup, we have elected judges at the state level here. The result: For many years there was an ongoing war against those handing out ads for prostitution. The ads didn't actually say it was prostitution, thus they were legal. Again and again the county commission passed laws banning them. Again and again every state judge who ruled on the measure said it was ok. Again and again the first federal judge to rule on the measure slapped it down on First Amendment grounds.

Duh! The government was trying to regulate the content of speech (prostitution bad, restaurants etc good.) Strangely enough they never tried anything like requiring those who hand out leaflets or the like have to pick up all discarded copies of what they are handing out within 50' of their location, assuming it's both safe and legal to do so. (Don't pick them out of the street, don't enter private property unless you have been told to--I'd let the occupants of any property that's within that 50' circle require them to pick them up there, also.)

It wouldn't do anything about those being offended by the ads (however, they're normally only given to individuals/groups that are only adult males--women and children only see them if they're discarded) but it would pretty much solve the litter problem--and the time spent picking them up very well might solve the problem anyway by making it uneconomic.

 

[fast]

I hate voting for Judges. We vote for local courts and Supreme Court in Ohio. It is nuts. Do we vote for doctors?

I'm also uncertain what fast's point is. IE limit the vote to smart people or just limit the vote for some positions to smart people... what are smart people?

Yup, we have elected judges at the state level here. The result: For many years there was an ongoing war against those handing out ads for prostitution. The ads didn't actually say it was prostitution, thus they were legal. Again and again the county commission passed laws banning them. Again and again every state judge who ruled on the measure said it was ok. Again and again the first federal judge to rule on the measure slapped it down on First Amendment grounds.

Duh! The government was trying to regulate the content of speech (prostitution bad, restaurants etc good.) Strangely enough they never tried anything like requiring those who hand out leaflets or the like have to pick up all discarded copies of what they are handing out within 50' of their location, assuming it's both safe and legal to do so. (Don't pick them out of the street, don't enter private property unless you have been told to--I'd let the occupants of any property that's within that 50' circle require them to pick them up there, also.)

It wouldn't do anything about those being offended by the ads (however, they're normally only given to individuals/groups that are only adult males--women and children only see them if they're discarded) but it would pretty much solve the litter problem--and the time spent picking them up very well might solve the problem anyway by making it uneconomic.

I've visited Vegas a few times. There were people at street corners called "flickers." They would stand there with pictures of provacative women and an inviting message. The people were called "flickers" because of how they got people's attention; they would stand there constantly flicking (or rather, loudly tapping) the cards as pedestrians would walk by.