Appointment by who? Other elected officials?
Seems similar to "best way to breed chickens, eggs or chickens?"
Election for any seat that has personal accountability, in which that individual is held responsible for his actions by the masses. Something where that individual is representing those people that elect them.
Appointment for positions that require responsibility and oversight.
Topic: Best way to Public offices. By election or appointment? (Read 216 times)
Public offices have become highly competitive today, that has made majority of individual to be interested and seek for the offices because of juicy benefits associated with it at the detriment of their citizen. Most often, by statistics there are wrong personalities occupying such position either by election or appointment? Which is better?
By licensing and open competition. You want the best people not the most popular or the most connected.
Election is still the best for choosing public offices/leaders.
Appoinment would lead to political dynasty and this is one of the biggest problem in many countries with their government positions.
Appoinment would lead to political dynasty and this is one of the biggest problem in many countries with their government positions.
I figure decision would be greatly improved than arrangement with regards to pick open workplaces. Decision would be alright as it would let everybody talk their voice on picking the people that would lead them. Wheres, it likewise alright to have an arrangement yet the inclination of the individual who might pick would ignore in this way. In this manner, it is smarter to have it through race to have transprency and no debasement could emerge from it.
That is a great one. But i believed individual appointed to occupy any office has been tested, the value and experienced is known that warrant such an office. 
Public offices have become highly competitive today, that has made majority of individual to be interested and seek for the offices because of juicy benefits associated with it at the detriment of their citizen. Most often, by statistics there are wrong personalities occupying such position either by election or appointment? Which is better?
it depends upon the situation, if the official who appointed a person on a certain position know what that person can do and do not look on the friendship it is better to appoint. But if the persons who want to be in a particular position is new, maybe the election method is better.
The fastest way is by court adjudication. There are loads of people in public offices in prison, but they call them cells, there.
I don't think that appointing a person in the public offices will be possible, an election is important because this is the time when all of us have a right to vote for our wants.
As much as people might loathe word "pyramid" i think election system should be working like that. Some quantity of people elect fewer quantity, whom in turn pick a representative of their own region\state\etc. Then those reps choose whoever is running for whatever position.
I think election would be much better than appointment when it comes to choose public offices. Election would be okay as it would let everyone speak their voice on choosing the persons that would lead them. Wheres, it also okay to have an appointment but the bias of the person who would choose would overlook thus. Thus, it is better to have it through election to have transprency and no corruption could arise from it.
Election, obviously. As much as it's flawed, it still makes for more competition, and that's why it'll beat appointments in those situation just as a rule.
Sure, there are advantages in letting people with expert knowledge chooose, but i honestly think, that human individualistic nature should be accounted for.
Sure, there are advantages in letting people with expert knowledge chooose, but i honestly think, that human individualistic nature should be accounted for.
It is the right of the people to vote for candidates which they think can serve the public for good. So election is the way to secure a position in public offices. And by the way, you can be appointed either because you have been serving the public and has good credentials or you're a close friend with the elected person 
All public officials are ultimately occupying their position via election, either directly or indirectly.
Those public officials who are appointed, if they do not fulfill their duties as per the will of the people, you will be removed from your position by someone who is elected.
Those public officials who are appointed, if they do not fulfill their duties as per the will of the people, you will be removed from your position by someone who is elected.
Public office as the name implies is meant for those transactions concerning the general public. Meaning that people with different family background, different ethnicity and language and with different views on issues found themselves doing one thing or the other for the progress of the society. In this kind of office the position should be giving to people who majority of the masses can easily reach out to for assistance. Therefore, the way to public offices should be by election where the public will have hand in who they want to serve them because if appointment is been used to choose those in public offices it will be business as usual (man know man and no check).
Public offices have become highly competitive today, that has made majority of individual to be interested and seek for the offices because of juicy benefits associated with it at the detriment of their citizen. Most often, by statistics there are wrong personalities occupying such position either by election or appointment? Which is better?
Jump to: