Negative Effects Of The Plural Executive Model

There are positive and negative effects to the plural executive model. Historically, state governors were known for abusing their power when appointing friends to political positions or handing them out as favors they would call upon later. This is why Texas in the 1850 amendment established a plural executive where by the governor must share power with other popularly elected executives, in this case the lieutenant governor, state treasurer, comptroller, general land commissioner, and executive officer. The president of the United States still has a cabinet of appointed officials, but Texas like most states have changed to elected officials. A major drawback to this form is that it lacks cohesion, leading to political officials chasing after many different goals. The governor has much less power to lead the group in any unified direction. Also, while voting prevents governor bias, voters do not always elect the most qualified officials.

In Texas, the only executive official appointed by the governor is the Secretary of State. The other executive officials, who run on their own, are the Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Comptroller of Public Accounts, Commissioner of the General Land Office, Commissioner of Agriculture, Elected Boards and Commissions, Railroad Commission, State Board of Education,

Appointed Agency Directors and Appointed and Ex-Officio Boards and Commissions. All of these political officials must be elected on their own, and they must defend their positions on their own. The reason plural executive is not as efficient as the single executive because plural executive causes conflicts of interest, no one has control over each other, public ignorance, and appointed office is under the governor.
The plural executive in Texas limits the power of the Governor by distributing power usually associated with a chief executive among many elected political leaders. Other officials are elected independently and do not campaign for office as a unified slate. They do not have to answer to the Governor, nor do they work together as a cabinet in the way that executive officials serve the United States President. Party leadership may encourage unity among candidates, but the campaign organizations operate independently of each other. This arrangement produces an executive branch whose officials jealously guard their jurisdiction, their power, and their prerogatives. In short, everyone defends his or her turf, and the Governor lacks any formal power to dictate or referee. Which I wouldn’t want to have if I were to design a state executive branch. The Governor is often the nominal head of his or her party in the state, but this does not offset the institutional political base other executives possess. As a result, the executive branch lacks cohesion, with different executives and their agencies often pursuing different goals.
If I were to design a state executive branch I would decide to have a single executive.

A single executive body is where the arm of the executive and its powers over legislation are given to one person. This brings certain problems such as accountability however it can be rewarding due to the set direction of a singular entity. There are many advantages to having a single executive and one of these is the concentrated direction of a single person that a governor. This makes the voting for a governor and lieutenant governor extremely important because this is the main opportunity for the people to decide the direction they want their government to be heading

in.