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.
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.