Can you imagine a ballot of hundreds of politicians for every position in the national government? Given the existing level of voter participation in this country (both the turnout to vote at all and the amount of research and careful decision making done on the average), holding a vote for every minor office would effectively randomize the choice--not to mention decrease many voters' interest in the election even further. Instead, officials are appointed by higher officials whose job it is to understand the candidates and the duties of the office. A government where every citizen voted on everything directly would be a true democracy, and the above is one of many reasons that we aren't one. Granted, there's nothing ideal about the current system, but it beats the known alternatives.

That is a very good question. When you talk about unelected officials, I'm assuming you're talking about executive branch officials. The president of the USA is tasked with carrying out certain duties and functions. To this end, positions have been created in the executive branch of government that have, over the last 200+ years, been created by one executive order, law, or another. The president can name appointees to this positions. The vast majority of polical appointees are not only the heads of government departments, but also, senior, mid-level and junior managment positions within the cabinet/agencies, as well as several technical staff. Each and every position has to be approved by Congress with very few exceptions. All of the senior positions and cabinet positions are normally approved by congress, while alot of the smaller, technical positions require formalities for approval. The media likes to focus on the larger, more important picture, when in reality, the major issues are with the lesser political appointees. The basis for these appointments are within the consitution and the definitions of the powers of the president. He has the ability to appoint advisors and helpers----however the constitution never specified how many----so, over the years, executive orders are issued by one president establishing a position...for example Regan created the position of drug CZAR to fight the war on terror. This position never existed before. THe position however, like most political appointments, end with an administration. Several positions, such as the head of the Federal Reserve and the Commissioner of Labor Statistics are appointed to terms that do not coincide with a presidential election because these positions demand a more independant minded person to carry out the business of their agency. And that is the major reason why alot of political appointees are appointed rather than elected. The major goal of an administration is to carry out its agenda, and the major role of government in the USA is to follow the requirements of law, rule and regulation---we like to think that government works for hte people, but in reality, government programs are required to meet laws under which their various programs are authorized. Additionally, prior to any appointment, notice is given in the federal register as to when hearings or comments on the appointments can be made. Anyone has the right to attend and present testimony for or against the individual in question. Its just that outside ofthe major cabinet heads and some assistant positions, very few people really want to deal with the process---they would rather have it easy than go through the steps the law provides---which really are simple---but I guess not simple enough to get people off their butts That is not to say that political appointees are not fought. I spent 15 years as a general officer in the AFGE union at DOL. The national HQ's of the federal unions fought tooth and nail political appointees in all administrations that were animical to union interests---and this testifying at committees and lobbying on the hill--and has been doing so since the Kennedy administration. You see there are some political appointees that would change the labor relations directions of federal agencies---we fought appointments under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. Edit 4/6/06: The source for this is ME if you read my last paragraph, I was involved in the political nomination and approval process internally in the federal government. I worked with other locals with AFGE. Training was conducted by GAO, THE USDA ACADEMY, AFGE, AFl-CIO, and if you go to Federal Register on line there are links to how the political appointment process works. If anyone wants to dispute the facts I've given..I'm more than willing to engage in debate, but the facts are the facts

In the case of Executive Branch officials, it's important to remember that they are appointed by an elected official, subject to the approval of at least 51 officials (Senators) who are elected separately. . It's important for you to consider your question from another angle -- "Why does the U.S. allow the President to put a staff together without requiring those staffers, one by one, to be ratified by popular vote?" . For the most important positions, the President has to ask the Senate for permission to hire them. (Which is already awkward and burdensome enough.) . People generally don't think of Cabinet Secretaries as "staff," but that's what they are. . And while they are not personally accountable to the voters, the President is accountable to the voters for his decisions -- and that includes decisions on who he hires. . There's been a lot of talk about "czars" being appointed, but it's also important to remember that this constitutes nothing more than the President saying "This is my point person on this issue." They have no legal authority to do anything but advise the President. . Cabinet Secretaries and other higher-ranking officials are required to get Senate confirmation because the laws as written give them independent decision-making and regulatory authority. (In other words, they issue rules and regulations on their own authority once they're in place -- which is why Senate confirmation is required. Anyone whose job doesn't require Senate confirmation can, at most, advise the President. Think of it as the difference between advisors and decision makers.)