Some of the more talked about constitutional reforms are instant-runoff voting, proportional representation in Congress, and the abolition of the Electoral College. I want to think about other ideas. What I really want is a slate of ten (a nice round number) electoral and constitutional reforms as a platform to be adopted by the progressive movement, with popular election of the president as the headliner of the group. Here's one possible plank.
One complaint out there is that the executive branch contains a heck of a lot of power, but concentrated in the hands of only one elected official, the President of the United States. Some advocate reducing the power of the executive branch, either by shifting power to Congress or the states or by decreasing the power of government altogether. The solution I want to explore, one that can be done concurrently with reducing the power of the executive, is changing the number of directly elected officials in the executive branch so that power is less concentrated. I think it is worth considering, especially since I think shifting to a parliamentary form of government is unlikely.
Most states have more than one executive position up for election. For example, of the 49 states that have a state treasurer or equivalent office (all but Texas), Tennessee has its treasurer elected by its legislature, eleven states have a treasurer appointed by the governor, and the rest use popular election. 43 states elect an attorney general. 35 a secretary of state. A lieutenant governor is elected separately from the governor in 18 states. Auditors, comptrollers, and commissioners of agriculture, education, or insurance are other offices. So, I think it is reasonable to explore directly electing some Cabinet positions for several reasons.
* Electing national positions such as attorney general or secretary of the treasury allows for direct accountability in specific policy areas. Wouldn't you like to have an election solely about the economy without the distraction of culture war topics and other wedge issues?
* Having more nationwide elections will increase interest and turnout. I envision electing the attorney general and secretary of the treasury during the mid-term elections.
* An independent Department of Justice is a good thing. A separately-elected attorney general will, in theory, provide an additional check against presidential power.
* Having nation-wide elections other than president allows for a deeper bench for future presidential candidates by allowing some politicians to demonstrate an ability to be competitive in national elections.
* It tears apart the "unitary executive" championed by Dick Cheney, in favor of a pluralistic executive.
Of course, this will probably require a constitutional amendment defining the Cabinet (something not mentioned in the Constitution) and its role in government. I'm less enthusiastic about electing Secretaries of Defense and State.
Is this a good idea? Would it make sense to elect the Vice President separately rather than on a ticket with the President? What about other Cabinet positions?