Looking at the Texas split Executive branch or plural executive it has for the most part had mixed reviews. On one hand it does afford the people a bit more say in state politics and divides power ensuring there is no one source of failure. However it has also been criticized for its lack of efficiency when it comes to decision making due to multiple parties failing to come to a decision. However the plural executive is a popular choice in many states and seems to regulate power effectively. For this reason I would not change Texas’s current plural executive branch system. In comparing the two executive branches unitary and plural each seem to have their strengths and weaknesses. The unitary executive theory took a lot of criticism under
…show more content…
states have the power to organize their governments however they see fit as long as it is constitutionally sound and it is a republic.” (Laws, 2017) This is where the plural executive comes into play. Unlike the unitary executive the plural much like it sounds is a division of power over multiple political leaders in the executive branch. In the case of Texas, “Texans elect six of the seven people who make up the plural executive: the governor, the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the land commissioner, the commissioner of agriculture, the comptroller, and the commissioner of the General Land Office. The governor appoints the seventh person, the secretary of state.” (W.W Norton & Co Inc., 2013) You can see how by this system the everyday people have more say in political affairs by being able to elect multiple officials to basically govern the state. Yes there have been times where processes get convoluted as the individual bodies in charge do not reach an expedient decision on issues but this also ensures mistakes are seldom made. Also it ensures rash decisions are not made by one political head in charge. Looking back at the Bush administration and the unitary executive you could link this to the accusations of WMDs in Iraq. Perhaps a more plural system at that time may have spared the president from …show more content…
It has been working for decades and gives the people more of a voice in political affairs through elections. Texas has had a long history of division in government, “Under the 1876 Constitution, our state founding fathers’ distrust of government led them to divide power into different elected offices. So while governors in other states typically appoint heads of office, that’s not the case in Texas where we make them run for political offices with support and backing of the political parties.” (Lone Star News Review, 2013) Forcing people to converse and debate topics in my experience has always led to a better solution vs one person making an immediate decision. Therefore I do not see any harm in leaving the existing structure of Texas’s executive branch the way it
states have the power to organize their governments however they see fit as long as it is constitutionally sound and it is a republic.” (Laws, 2017) This is where the plural executive comes into play. Unlike the unitary executive the plural much like it sounds is a division of power over multiple political leaders in the executive branch. In the case of Texas, “Texans elect six of the seven people who make up the plural executive: the governor, the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the land commissioner, the commissioner of agriculture, the comptroller, and the commissioner of the General Land Office. The governor appoints the seventh person, the secretary of state.” (W.W Norton & Co Inc., 2013) You can see how by this system the everyday people have more say in political affairs by being able to elect multiple officials to basically govern the state. Yes there have been times where processes get convoluted as the individual bodies in charge do not reach an expedient decision on issues but this also ensures mistakes are seldom made. Also it ensures rash decisions are not made by one political head in charge. Looking back at the Bush administration and the unitary executive you could link this to the accusations of WMDs in Iraq. Perhaps a more plural system at that time may have spared the president from …show more content…
It has been working for decades and gives the people more of a voice in political affairs through elections. Texas has had a long history of division in government, “Under the 1876 Constitution, our state founding fathers’ distrust of government led them to divide power into different elected offices. So while governors in other states typically appoint heads of office, that’s not the case in Texas where we make them run for political offices with support and backing of the political parties.” (Lone Star News Review, 2013) Forcing people to converse and debate topics in my experience has always led to a better solution vs one person making an immediate decision. Therefore I do not see any harm in leaving the existing structure of Texas’s executive branch the way it