Some areas of the US have experimented with electing some surprising things, including police chiefs and even judges. The system is flawed, and it doesn't work very well.
However! It's only very slightly flawed, and it works about as well as all the other systems. The key is this:
> they hold no "political power", they should do what the government has chosen (as a boss would follow the order of the board/owners).
Right. But the government is chosen by the electorate, who are the ultimate "owners" in your analogy. The difference between electing a governor (or state congress, or whatever) and having him appoint a judge, or just electing the judge directly turns out to be really, really minimal. If an electorate would have elected a far-right (or far-left) whackjob to be a police chief, then they'll elect the kind of governor who will appoint a far-right (or far-left) whackjob as police chief. I happen to strongly dislike Joe Arpaio, sheriff of Maricopa County Arizona, but I don't see why Governor Jan Brewer could be counted upon to appoint someone better (google those names and you'll see why). The people there support policies I dislike, and they will find ways to implement them unless forceably stopped. That's democracy.
(Conversely, at one time Senators were appointed by state governments; they are now directly elected. Doesn't seem to have had a ton of impact. Conservative states went from electing conservative state governments which appointed conservative senators to just electing conservative senators. I think the earlier system might have been better, but I'll be damned if I can point to any concrete evidence either way.)
People seem to get the government they deserve. :)
I've always had the understanding that electing judges and police chiefs is an issue because they have more important things to worry about than elections. If they had to think about "whether this is an election year" and how their actions might impact their public image, that could interfere with them acting as impartial agents of the state.
The legislative branch is to be elected to make and change laws, which represent the will of the people. The executive and judicial branches are appointed by the legislative branch and not de-appointed.
This keeps houses of power (writing of law, execution of law, interpretation of law) at arm's length, and makes change slow and difficult. That's actually theoretically a good thing, under some assumptions: that the will of the people is fickle and ill-informed; that we have a pretty good system already; and that forces which last a long time are likelier to be for good than bad in our society.
Any of those assumptions could be off-base, but if you're fine with them, then a slow government where each branch is at arm's length and has minimal effect on each other's composition at any given moment is effective.
Elections for all branches of government would make them all fluid and reactive to public will. That may be fine, but it would mean a much higher capacity for fast change in our lives, both for the positive and the negative.
Sorry if I'm not clearly making a point -- I don't really disagree with you, but I feel that there are well-defined reasons in our political system for not electing members of the other branches of government.
However! It's only very slightly flawed, and it works about as well as all the other systems. The key is this:
> they hold no "political power", they should do what the government has chosen (as a boss would follow the order of the board/owners).
Right. But the government is chosen by the electorate, who are the ultimate "owners" in your analogy. The difference between electing a governor (or state congress, or whatever) and having him appoint a judge, or just electing the judge directly turns out to be really, really minimal. If an electorate would have elected a far-right (or far-left) whackjob to be a police chief, then they'll elect the kind of governor who will appoint a far-right (or far-left) whackjob as police chief. I happen to strongly dislike Joe Arpaio, sheriff of Maricopa County Arizona, but I don't see why Governor Jan Brewer could be counted upon to appoint someone better (google those names and you'll see why). The people there support policies I dislike, and they will find ways to implement them unless forceably stopped. That's democracy.
(Conversely, at one time Senators were appointed by state governments; they are now directly elected. Doesn't seem to have had a ton of impact. Conservative states went from electing conservative state governments which appointed conservative senators to just electing conservative senators. I think the earlier system might have been better, but I'll be damned if I can point to any concrete evidence either way.)
People seem to get the government they deserve. :)