There are both advantages and disadvantages for Plural Executive system. On the one hand, plural executive prohibiting the governor abusing their power, such as appointing their friend as other political officials like old days in Texas.
On the one hand, plural executive prohibiting the governor abusing their power, such as appointing their friend as other political officials like old days in Texas. Secondly, the more officials involved in the executive panel, the more cautious the decisions they make (Philpott 32).
The single executive model is different from the plural one in that the executive leader has all the powers without sharing with any other officer. Governors and presidents in a single, unlike a plural executive model, can appoint officers in state positions.
Secondly, since the officials are elected by voters, people with little political knowledge might be swayed by campaign and choose unsuitable or even unqualified candidates. Even though there are pros and cons towards plural executive system, I do think this system is suitable for Texas.
Which of the following are arguments made against the plural executive? The plural executive can lead to a counterproductive relationship among members of the executive branch. The plural executive is often ineffective.
A major drawback to this form is that it lacks cohesion, leading to political officials chasing after many different goals. The governor has much less power to lead the group in any unified direction. Also, while voting prevents governor bias, voters do not always elect the most qualified officials.
Definition of plural executive : a group of officers or major officials (as a board of directors) or a committee that functions in making current decisions or in giving routine orders usually the responsibility of an individual executive officer or official.
Texas utilizes a plural executive which means the power of the Governor is limited and distributed amongst other government officials. In other words, there is not one government official in Texas that is solely responsible for the Texas Executive Branch.
plural executive. an executive branch in which the functions have been divided among several, mostly elected, officeholders rather than residing in a single person, the governor.
Unlike the federal government, California has a plural executive system, meaning that statewide executive offices are elected separately by the voters rather than being appointed by the chief executive, the governor (figure 6-1).
What do some argue is the one advantage of a plural executive in Texas? It constrains the power of executive officials and makes them more accountable to the public.
When the directing authority is exercised not by one single individual for a term but a group of persons having co-equal authority, it is known as 'Plural' executive.
best describes the plural executive in Texas? It is a political arrangement where power is distributed among many statewide officials. Except for the Secretary of State, members of the executive branch in Texas: Are elected by the voters.
What is one consequence of the plural executive structure used in Texas? It decreases the powers of the governor, as the other elected executive officers act independently.
Why did the Texas constitution establish a plural executive? There was suspicion of a strong chief executive. What is the most important function of the Texas governor's staff?
Which of the following explains why Texas's plural executive weakens the governor? Several significant executive leaders are elected independently of the governor and operate under their own authority.
I believe that the plural executive is more democratic than the single model because of the presence of several equals representing different people. In a plural model, every executive represents different people based on ideologies and culture. Discussion about making decisions is more objective and free from self-interests because leaders cannot allow discrimination against the people they represent. The decisions made are shared equally, implying equal repression of public opinions. Therefore, leaders in a plural model are more democratic because their decisions represent voices public voices following representation from every official. Leaders in a single executive, on the contrary, have all the powers to make selfish decisions against public needs. The leaders do not have someone who can criticize their personal opinions. Even when such governors are unwilling to dictate the state, they cannot be completely free from prejudice. The leaders lack challenges in their ideas, meaning that they lead through their powers and not as the public needs. There also lacks people with the ability to question their moves due to threats of arrest and other adverse treatments.
Supporters of the plural executive model argue that it is essential to ensure executive accountability to the public. The public elects most of the executive officials, making them accountable to voters as opposed to one top leader. Liability to the public is more demanding due to potential punishment and defamation, making the leaders more responsible. On the other hand, the leaders have limited power to misuse their position, a situation that makes them more accountable. Another advantage of the model is stability and permanence. The various leaders provide talents for the administration to maintain service to the public regardless of individual opinions. Objectivity in decision making through shared roles accommodates stability by maintaining consistency of policies. The model also minimizes opposition by attracting a combination of political parties of the majority party. As the number ad diversity of the executive leaders increase, opposition reduces since everyone has a share.
The single executive model is different from the plural one in that the executive leader has all the powers without sharing with any other officer. Governors and presidents in a single, unlike a plural executive model, can appoint officers in state positions.
A plural executive model is a government system in which more than one executive leader shares the powers and has independence in decision-making. In a plural model, the executive leader shares powers with other members of the branch, such as seven in Texas, such that no specific person is responsible for the executive branch. The single executive model is different from the plural one in that the executive leader has all the powers without sharing with any other officer. Governors and presidents in a single, unlike a plural executive model, can appoint officers in state positions.
The power of the governor in Texas, a plural executive, is weaker compared to other states due to limited authority is passing laws and appoint officials. An example of such weakness is during the bonding process.
The effect can be confusion and an inefficient government. On the other hand, a plural model, risks, conflict among leaders, or between the officials and the governor. There are high chances of other officials to oppose the governor and even attempt to create disputes to prove powerful. Such conflicts lead to slow decision making in ...
Co-leaders can stand with their diverse goals if dissatisfied with that from the overall leader. The effect can be confusion and an inefficient government. On the other hand, a plural model, risks, conflict among leaders, or between the officials and the governor. There are high chances of other officials to oppose the governor and even attempt to create disputes to prove powerful. Such conflicts lead to slow decision making in the executive as they take time to settle their differences. Another disadvantage of a plural model is the lack of a single agenda for the government. Officials forming the branch come with multiple plans so that each can prove capable to the public leading to more votes. Such various agendas make the government move slow in development and other roles.