1 As discussed in this module plural executive systems involve the separate elections of multiple positions – Get help from top-rated tutors 2024

#1

As discussed in this module, plural executive systems involve the separate elections of multiple positions in the executive branch. 

If a plural executive system were instituted at the federal level, would this be an improvement over the existing singular executive system?  How might national-level politics work differently under such a system?

#2

As discussed in the module, state judges are usually either selected through appointment or popularly elected.  Which of these systems seems preferable to you, and why?

max length 2 paragraphs no citations or quotations 

———————————————————————————————–

Student Replies 

#1

I believe that a plural executive system would not be an improvement to our current system. A plural executive may have its advantages such adding more accountability and seriousness to the positions, but overall I think it would cause chaos and stalemates in our system. Whenever a party takes over office and is able to appoint people with similar values and ideas it is much easier to get things done. Leaders are on the same page with their peers and this overall creates ease in operations. When a political party takes office I think it is counterproductive for them to have added struggle to pass laws and policies. We already have the checks and balances system, there is no need to create more barriers from getting things done. Another issue with elected positions is the fact that a huge portion of the population actually has no idea what they are talking about when it comes to politics. They are easily swayed by flashy campaigns and propaganda. Elected officials are not always the best choice. At least if they are being appointed it is more likely they have a proven track record. Further more I do not think having more elected positions would help current political climate. The way our elections have been going have really been a circus. There is a true lack in actual political debates that cover real issues. They have evolved into slanderous, televised reality shows. 

#2

I certainly am all for popularly elected in most cases; however, when it is in regards to electing judges, I prefer them to be appointed. I don’t like the idea of the public popularity aspect coming into play. I like the idea that judges would be somewhat free from the pressure of political pressure when making the decisions that they have to make. I think the stakes are too high for judges to be elected and run a part of a political party. I do understand that it is still somewhat politically connected based on who is in office and appoints them. You are never completely free of political pressure in political offices, but I do feel that judges being appointed helps this in some way. They should definitely be able to make decisions objectively and be in pursuit of justice without the typical ugliness that comes with political battling between parties. It seems that appointing judges takes out some of the negative outcomes that can stem from being concerned with contributions and approval from voters. The job of a judge is so important that it is one area that you just want a sound, rational, but most of all fair person making those decisions. Of course in politics nothing is 100% fair or black and white, but I do think that appointment judges has less negative complications than relying on popular vote.

Max is 4 sentences each