4 ms·

The US switched from the spoils system to the civil service system because the voters did not want a system where rulers could always put people who align with

The US switched from the spoils system to the civil service system because the voters did not want a system where rulers could always put people who align with them politically into non-political offices. The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act (passed in 1883) and subsequent laws were put into place democratically. To think otherwise is farcical. Guiteau took the spoils system pretty personally, as you might recall.

carlosjobim 2y ago
The highest offices are political or should be considered so. Anything below a certain level should be treated as civil service.
- eesmith 2y ago
  Is the current civil service system democratic? If so, why? The US Postmaster General is not appointed by the president. Is it a political office? Is it an important office? What about the Chair of the Federal Reserve? We have independent agencies of the United States government specifically to insulate them from presidential control. Is their existence undemocratic? Or are none of them important?
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    Quite clearly the Federal Reserve is an undemocratic institution. However the banks are the owners of the nations and of the population, so it's rather they who would control who is president or king rather than the other way around. As history has shown about three thousand times. > We have independent agencies of the United States government specifically to insulate them from presidential control. That's the separation of powers. However, within the executive branch, where the president constitutionally has power, it is only reasonable that he will politically appoint the highest offices. Otherwise he cannot execute the policy that voters have obliged him to.
    - eesmith 2y ago
      And the Post Office is also undemocratic? "where the president constitutionally has power" What a vacuous statement, trivially true. This thread concerns civil servants, some of which are in important positions.
      - carlosjobim 2y ago
        How can I explain my position so that you understand it? Of course, the post office is undemocratic if voters cannot influence who is head of it. Are we talking past each other with different meanings? Any organisation where voters don't have a say is undemocratic. That doesn't mean I put any value in it, it is just what it is according to the definition of the word.
        eesmith 2y ago
        The voters do have a say. The voters can influence who is the head of it. This control is indirect. The Postmaster General is selected and appointed by the Board of Governors of the Postal Service. The members of the Board of Governors is appointed by the president, with a seven year term. No more than 5 of the 9 governors may be from the same party. The president cannot fire or force a governor to resign. This is far different than what you want, which is to have the president be able to replace anyone in an important position. If you want everyone to vote for everything, move to Switzerland where there is a direct democracy. If you want the president to be able to replace anyone in an important position, move to some place with a dictatorship.

carlosjobim 2y ago

The highest offices are political or should be considered so. Anything below a certain level should be treated as civil service.

eesmith 2y ago
Is the current civil service system democratic? If so, why? The US Postmaster General is not appointed by the president. Is it a political office? Is it an important office? What about the Chair of the Federal Reserve? We have independent agencies of the United States government specifically to insulate them from presidential control. Is their existence undemocratic? Or are none of them important?
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  Quite clearly the Federal Reserve is an undemocratic institution. However the banks are the owners of the nations and of the population, so it's rather they who would control who is president or king rather than the other way around. As history has shown about three thousand times. > We have independent agencies of the United States government specifically to insulate them from presidential control. That's the separation of powers. However, within the executive branch, where the president constitutionally has power, it is only reasonable that he will politically appoint the highest offices. Otherwise he cannot execute the policy that voters have obliged him to.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    And the Post Office is also undemocratic? "where the president constitutionally has power" What a vacuous statement, trivially true. This thread concerns civil servants, some of which are in important positions.
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      How can I explain my position so that you understand it? Of course, the post office is undemocratic if voters cannot influence who is head of it. Are we talking past each other with different meanings? Any organisation where voters don't have a say is undemocratic. That doesn't mean I put any value in it, it is just what it is according to the definition of the word.
      - eesmith 2y ago
        The voters do have a say. The voters can influence who is the head of it. This control is indirect. The Postmaster General is selected and appointed by the Board of Governors of the Postal Service. The members of the Board of Governors is appointed by the president, with a seven year term. No more than 5 of the 9 governors may be from the same party. The president cannot fire or force a governor to resign. This is far different than what you want, which is to have the president be able to replace anyone in an important position. If you want everyone to vote for everything, move to Switzerland where there is a direct democracy. If you want the president to be able to replace anyone in an important position, move to some place with a dictatorship.