3 ms·

The UK has what are called "Non-ministerial government departments"[0]. These are government departments who aren't overseen directly by the government because

The UK has what are called "Non-ministerial government departments"[0]. These are government departments who aren't overseen directly by the government because they are deemed issues that live outside of the domain of the current governing party. This is in part to avoid the kind of "50% control" problems. Does the US not have some kind of similar element? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ministerial_government_department https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ministerial_government_dep...

edraferi 7y ago
Almost everything winds up as a department under the executive branch, headed by a political appointee. But exceptions exist, like the Post Office and TVA.
Majromax 7y ago
> Does the US not have some kind of similar element? Not on such a widespread basis, no (exceptions exist). For example, Wikipedia lists the Crown Prosecution Service as one such UK government department, but in the US the Attorney General directly governs the Department of Justice. This led to the then-chronic debate about just who had the authority to oversee/direct the Mueller investigation. Even when an organization is set up outside the traditional Cabinet hierarchy, its leadership is still typically appointed by the President (often with Senate confirmation), such that a new administration should quickly expect to appoint a working majority of directors. This can also directly cause problems of governance. The Federal Election Commission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Commission) is an independent agency that is responsible for administering elections law, but because of Presidental/Senate deadlock the board no longer has a quorum required to take official actions.
- Enginerrrd 7y ago
  Eh, Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are all lifetime appointees. Part of the theory for that is to decouple their decisions from a fear of political backlash like they might face if they had to get reelected. Despite their many failings, I actually think this system works pretty well, and I'm always impressed at the reasoning behind supreme court rulings --even those I don't agree with.

edraferi 7y ago

Almost everything winds up as a department under the executive branch, headed by a political appointee. But exceptions exist, like the Post Office and TVA.

Majromax 7y ago

> Does the US not have some kind of similar element? Not on such a widespread basis, no (exceptions exist). For example, Wikipedia lists the Crown Prosecution Service as one such UK government department, but in the US the Attorney General directly governs the Department of Justice. This led to the then-chronic debate about just who had the authority to oversee/direct the Mueller investigation. Even when an organization is set up outside the traditional Cabinet hierarchy, its leadership is still typically appointed by the President (often with Senate confirmation), such that a new administration should quickly expect to appoint a working majority of directors. This can also directly cause problems of governance. The Federal Election Commission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Commission) is an independent agency that is responsible for administering elections law, but because of Presidental/Senate deadlock the board no longer has a quorum required to take official actions.

Enginerrrd 7y ago
Eh, Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are all lifetime appointees. Part of the theory for that is to decouple their decisions from a fear of political backlash like they might face if they had to get reelected. Despite their many failings, I actually think this system works pretty well, and I'm always impressed at the reasoning behind supreme court rulings --even those I don't agree with.