=Election or Appointment, Which is Better?=—We often encounter the question: Which is the better plan of securing good men in public office—to elect them or to have them appointed? The answer to this question depends upon what we expect the officials to do. If the function of the official is to _represent_ the people in deciding questions of general policy as in the case of a congressman, a state legislator, or a municipal councilman, the people ought to choose him. It is the right and the duty of the people to choose their own representatives. If they did not do so, we should not have “representative” government. But if the function of the official is not to decide questions of general policy but to do work which requires skill and experience, it is better to make the office appointive. The rule, in brief, may be stated as follows: When you want representation, elect; when you want skill or experience, appoint. Some difficulty arises, however, in the case of officials who are expected both to represent the people and to perform functions which require expertness. Take, for example, the state treasurer or the state auditor. These officials represent the financial interests of the people; they are also called upon to perform functions which require skill and experience. Officials in this dual class are in some states elected; in others they are appointed by the governor. Whether we ought to use one method or the other depends upon where we place the emphasis—upon representation or upon administrative efficiency. Account should also be taken of the fact that if too many officials are elected the ballot will be long and complicated. In that case some poorly-qualified candidates are likely to be chosen because voters will not go through a long list carefully (see p. 132). [Sidenote: Should a representative obey his own conscience or the will of the voters?]