Someone read 'The Federalist Papers'
OK, I don't want to get too bogged down in the 'should we or shouldn't we' debate regarding Gov. Sonny Perdue's proposal to have four constitutional officers appointed rather than elected, as they currently are now. Martin and I disagree over logical and valid reasons, and the issue even resulted in me breaking with the exising meme from the Democratic Party of Georgia.
Dustin rebutted my argument, so, obviously, I need to rebut the rebuttal ... but I'm not sure really where to begin.
My analogy between the federal level and state level, to him, doesn't hold water. As far as I can figure, the primary argument is there is an extensive level of expertise necessary to serve as, say, the Secretary of Defense for the United States, thus meaning it's more appropriate for the president to appoint well-qualified individuals to serve in those roles. At the state level, however, we're 'closer' to the offices of, say, State School Superintendent, which means we should be able to cast a ballot for that office ...
But, on the State level, many more people understand the executive offices. State level executives are more close to the people. What the State School Superintendent does is more likely to affect the individual of Georgia than what the Sec. of Education does. As such, they should be more responsive to the citizens. So, the more responsive they are to the people, the better.
I don't think that makes any sense.
Simply moving closer to the local level achieves very little regarding the public's understanding of a particular issue or policy area. Just because I have a child in a school system, for instance, doesn't mean I'm up-to-date on all the ins-and-outs of education policy or learning trends or teaching methods. Just because I like fresh tomatoes doesn't mean I'm qualified to speak about the latest developments in the world of agriculture.
Regardless of the level of government, the expertise required to run those departments is universal ... and it's an expertise the average voter lacks when they head to the ballot box. Responsiveness matters little when ill-prepared individuals are heading up those departments (and I'd argue that responsiveness would be more focused because the criticism would fall on the governor, who can make changes throughout the year, rather than on the elected invidual who wouldn't be up for re-election for another four years).
Dustin rattles through a list of my arguments and rebuts them, well, as I would rebut them. But that's the point ... I don't disagree with those rebuttals, hence why I posed them as analogies in the first place. Of course we protect the minority's view through a 2/3 rule to amend the state's constitution. Of course we don't have a direct democracy for obvious reasons related to cumbersomeness and inefficiency.
That's why the particular argument that Perdue is attempting to 'limit democracy' makes absolutely no sense to me. Because if you're going to start complaining about democracy being stifled, then why aren't other avenues being railed against? If you concede those aforementioned practices aren't done because of various reasons, then why aren't the reasons I laid out above enough justification for at least the consideration of this proposal?
Likewise, these positions won't be appointed by some untouchable ruler, but rather by a democratically elected governor who has espoused a stated vision in these various areas. Folks would not be walking blind in this thing, just as how they aren't when they vote for president (or, depending on the state, governor). If the governor says I want to do 'X' and 'Y' on education, then he or she will actually be able to do that once in office (unlike now where the independence of the offices leads to staredowns and stagnation over policy proposals).
Listen, I've conceded there are good counterarguments to the proposal. Nor do I think this proposal is completely perfect or that it guarantees greater governmental efficiency.
However, I simply don't think hanging your hat on the 'less democracy' argument is the most rational course of action.
(Comments are open for discussion.)
I get a little uncomfortable...
Submitted by martin on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 18:46.... when people start talking about more vs less democracy on things this nuanced. We've both admitted, from our separate sides of this debate, that one idea isn't head and shoulders better than the other.
Obviously, you can say that the United States has "more democracy" than, say, Tsarist Russia, and it's okay to do that when the differences are that stark. But in this case, like I said, it's nuanced. I guess maybe it's correct on a very tortured technicality - voting is a big part of democracy, less voting = less democracy? But, I don't think I'd make that argument, and I'm not really sure I buy it anyway.
Here's what kind of bothers me more, though:
I imagine that Dustin is basing this on anecdotal experience, but my own anecdotal experience tells me that it just isn't the case. Low- to medium-information voters, and low- to medium-engagement voters don't seem to make huge distinctions in their understanding of federal versus state offices and agencies. My best evidence for this is Jim Powell's race for PSC last year. What we saw regularly was that most voters didn't know what the initials "PSC" stood for (Public Service Commission, if you're keeping score at home), much less what the body does. Voter education had to be a big part of our messaging. Personally, I'd bet a Sunday six-pack that more average Georgia voters could tell me what the US Secretary of Energy does than could tell me what a member of the PSC does.
The PSC example, by the way, is not chosen lightly by me. First, I did have more experience with that race than with any other down-ballot statewide I've been around. Also, the PSC is kind of different from other statewide offices in that its name doesn't necessarily give any context clues about its function (e.g. it's a fair bet that the Agriculture Commissioner has something to do with pigs and soybeans, the Insurance Commissioner has something to do with insurance. But "Public Service Commission" cound be anything from campaign finance to grant money to utilities.)