I've taken some time to mull over the idea of an appointed Cabinet, and I'm leaning towards opposing it. It doesn't seem like there have been significant arguments put forth in favor of an elected Cabinet, so I wanted to lay out a few of mine.

Cabinet elections set clear goalposts. For a South Pacifican who, like many of us, discovers an interest in a particular area of government, an elected cabinet system provides greater confidence that they will be able to continue participating in that area. They know that the ministry they're interested in won't be abolished at the whim of a particular Prime Minister. They know that if they have significant ideas to move the ministry forward, they can make the case to their fellow South Pacificans directly. They know that they will remain accountable to their fellow South Pacificans through a consistent and predictable electoral process. In an appointed system, the opposite is true. They are directly accountable to the Prime Minister, who may be leaving office in a few months at most. They know that at that time, they may need to make their case to a new Prime Minister with very different plans for their ministry. And they know that may be the case regardless of how satisfied South Pacificans are with their performance, because there will be many more issues at stake in the Prime Minister elections than a single ministry.

Cabinet elections offer clear pathways to retention. Shifting goalposts don't encourage people to stick around. They don't inspire confidence that continued participation in one's area of interest is viable or guaranteed. Especially without a fixed set of ministries, there is no guarantee that it will even be possible to continue participating in a certain area of government past the end of a term. Fixed goalposts, as offered by Cabinet elections, mean that South Pacificans have a clear reason to stick around, because they know that they will be able to continue doing what they enjoy.

Cabient elections emphasize democracy over efficiency. When we elect our Prime Minister, there is a natural expectation for what can best be described as competency. I've heard this mentioned as an argument in favor of an appointed Cabinet: letting the Prime Minister appoint their Cabinet enables them to actually accomplish their agenda. Naturally, this shifts the balance of accountability: Cabinet ministers answer primarily to the Prime Minister rather than the Assembly;,and the Prime Minister primarily answers to the Assembly on behalf of all their appointed Ministers. This situation places greater emphasis on efficiency and unity in the Cabinet rather than on democracy. Cabinet elections are a deliberate electoral process with an emphasis on plans, goals, and hopes for different parts of our government. Cabinet appointments are a deliberate political process with an emphasis on building a Cabinet that works well together on a common agenda — which is subtly but notably different from building a Cabinet that accurately represents the views of South Pacificans.

Cabinet elections provide voters with more choices. While I'm sure someone will note the number of uncontested Cabinet races we've had, an appointed Cabinet just papers over the cracks. Even if we have more Prime Minister candidates, voters will essentially be choosing between omnibus packages. They may not agree with any Prime Minister candidates in every area, but they will be consciously weighing which candidate they disagree with the least; there is no guarantee the elected Prime Minister will represent the views of the region in each area within their purview. With an elected Cabinet, each individual voter may not see all of their favored candidates win election, but the elected candidates will represent the general will of voters within their particular area of responsibility.