What's the point of elections if everything is already decided - Part 4

The Fiduciary Relationship between the Electorate and Elected Officials

 

Previous blog posts have offered examples of “Two-Against-One” behavior at both the national and state levels.  These examples confirm that Democratic and Republican lawmakers occasionally join forces to brazenly benefit themselves at the expense of the Electorate [D + R against E].

 
When this shameful behavior does occur, it happens as an unintended consequence of the fiduciary relationship that must exist between the Electorate and the Political Party(ies) who have been granted leadership powers for a fixed term of office resulting from the outcomes of the most recent elections.
 
A fiduciary relationship is one based on trust.  In effect, when the Electorate chooses officials for high office, it is trusting those officials to work for the best interests of the voters who elected them.  The officials seen by the Electorate as having lived up to that challenge can expect to be rewarded with another term of office. Those seen as not living up to that challenge can expect to be voted out of office. 
 
That is our system.
 
In effect, the Electorate decides which candidates or political parties will be granted the considerable power that comes with election to high public office.  For the sake of the country or the state, the powers granted must be substantial to be at least sufficient to deal with unforeseen challenges and crises that could very well arise during the term of office of candidates who have been elected to serve.
 
And because the powers granted by the Electorate to its high elected officials are so substantial, such powers inherently allow for a high degree of discretion and judgment on the part of the elected officials.  And it is in those areas of discretion and judgment that the level of trust may be tested or even violated.   
 
America’s Founders realized that the best decisions for the country or state might not always be popular in the short term and, for that reason, they provided terms of office ranging from 6-years for senators, to 4-years for chief executives, and 2-years for representatives.  The idea for this was that a senator or chief executive could make initially-unpopular decisions and still have time to recover before the next election.  Representatives, with just 2-year terms clearly can’t afford to get too far ahead of their voters.
 
For that reason, Democratic and Republican lawmakers who work together to benefit themselves at the expense of the Electorate normally do so immediately after an election, in the hope that the voters may “forget” about their transgressions by the time they must once again face the voters at the polls.
 

Political Patronage in America

America didn’t invent political patronage.  It flourished in Europe between the 14^th and 17^th centuries.¹ 

The Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary defines “political patronage” as: a) the power of public officials to make appointments to government jobs or grant other favors to their supporters; or b) the distribution of such jobs or favors; or c) the jobs or favors so distributed.  

 
The history of political patronage in America is a fascinating one that has been neatly captured in a brief essay published by The Free Dictionary.² That brief history includes the following points:

·         “When the candidate of a political party wins an election, the newly elected official has the right to appoint a certain number of persons to jobs in the government. This is the essence of the patronage system, also known as the spoils system ("To the victor go the spoils"): appointing persons to government positions on the basis of political support and work rather than on merit, as measured by objective criteria. Though the patronage system exists at all levels of U.S. government, the number of positions that are available through patronage has decreased dramatically since the 1880s.”
 
·         “By the 1860s and the Civil War, patronage had led to widespread inefficiency and political corruption. Where patronage had once been confined to the cabinet, department heads, and foreign ambassadorships, by the 1860s low-level government positions were subject to patronage. The loss of a presidential election by a political party signaled wholesale turnover in the federal government. When President Benjamin Harrison took office in 1889, 31,000 federal postmaster positions changed hands.”
 
·         “State and local governments have employed large patronage systems. Big-city political machines in places such as New York, Boston, and Chicago thrived in the late nineteenth century. A patronage system not only rewards political supporters for past support, it also encourages future support, because persons who have a patronage job try to retain it by campaigning for the party at the next election.” 

Political Patronage and Public Higher Education

These quotes suggest that when political patronage is allowed to operate in state or local government: a) Individuals get appointed to their positions on the basis of political support rather than on merit;

b) Political patronage leads to widespread inefficiency and corruption; and

c) Patronage systems reward political supporters for past support, while demanding future support as the price of retaining their patronage appointment.

When a political patronage system is imposed upon public higher education—as is the current case in Pennsylvania—all of the negative consequences cited above come into play.

First, the Governor will continue to appoint, and the State Senate will continue to confirm, their respective political supporters, with little or no consideration of whether those appointees will put the best interests of the universities and the students above all other interests—as required of all fiduciary relationships.  Second, political patronage will lead to widespread inefficiency and corruption in the public universities themselves.  And third, the fact that political appointees, to keep their privileged seats, must demonstrate past, present and future support of the “patrons” who appointed them, means that those political appointees will operate under a divided loyalty (a.k.a., conflict of interest), in which they will always have to choose between the interests of the students and those of the elected officials.

To be continued.

¹ https://www.keepandshare.com/doc/7413376/aa-a-brief-history-of-patronage-november-22-2014-pdf-153k.
² https://www.keepandshare.com/doc/7413377/aa-the-free-dictionary-political-patronage-november-22-2014-pdf-266k.