I’VE NEVER found anything convincing about any of the arguments put forward for why South Carolinians should continue to elect nine statewide officials — or even six, or four. But many of the arguments stem from differences in the way I and supporters of the long ballot look at the role of government, and at the electoral process.

Some of the defenses of the status quo, though, simply defy logic. And yet, like far too many illogical arguments put forward in politics, they sound reasonable if you don’t take the time to think through them.

One recent example came when Gov. Mark Sanford’s Commission on Management, Accountability and Performance discussed whether to throw its collective weight behind Mr. Sanford’s proposals to eliminate eight of the statewide elective offices and let the governor appoint people to serve in the positions that weren’t eliminated altogether. While the panel endorsed the idea of having the governor name the superintendent of education, the adjutant general and the secretary of state (the first two being the constitutional offices that most clearly need to be appointed rather than elected), it declined to endorse changes to the treasurer, comptroller general, lieutenant governor and agriculture commissioner.

The most astounding argument against more changes came from commission member John Pettigrew, who complained that changing all eight positions would require a lot of work, since voters would have to approve nearly all of the changes. “We’re going to have a 10-page ballot if we have to vote on all of these,” he argued.

Let’s set aside the hyperbole and take that argument on its face. Few questions that have been placed on the ballot in South Carolina are more straightforward than these would be. The idea that S.C. voters aren’t smart enough to make all those choices at once is offensive.

Beyond that, it overlooks the fact that we have an unreasonably long ballot every four years, because we have to elect so many people. If voters are taxed, it’s not by having to decide once and for all whether they want to keep electing the people who run individual state agencies; it’s by having to follow nine separate statewide races and become familiar enough with all those candidates to make an informed decision about whom to support — every four years.

Suggesting we shouldn’t even attempt to shorten the ballot because it might take a couple of extra minutes in the voting booth is like saying you’d rather call information every time you want to know what time it is instead of taking the time to set your clocks.

The next illogical argument came when Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell convened a special task force to talk about the idea. Sen. Jake Knotts tried to use the recent resignation of Jim McClain as director of the state Probation Department as an argument against letting the governor appoint the constitutional officers. Mr. McClain resigned, under pressure from the governor, after news reports that he had greatly exaggerated military claims on his resume.

If anything, this is an argument for giving the governor more power. What happens if you find out after an election that the new adjutant general or education superintendent or treasurer lied about his or her experience? Well, nothing. Barring serious criminal offenses, you’re stuck with them until the next election. On the other hand, as Mr. Sanford just demonstrated in the McClain case, a governor can immediately act to correct the problem if he appoints someone who turns out not to be what he seemed.

These aren’t the only arguments supporters of the status quo put forward, of course. But they’re typical: Most of the arguments simply don’t stand up to reason, or at the least pay too much deference to the notion of keeping things as they have always been, without even considering the advantage of change.

And there are countless good reasons for reducing the number of separately elected statewide officials, and for allowing the governor to appoint the people who will carry out the day-to-day operations of government. Among them: It’s nearly impossible for even those of us whose job it is to do such things to get familiar enough with the job requirements, performance and qualifications of the candidates for so many purely ministerial functions that we can make smart decisions about who should be elected; how much more difficult is it for folks who are not paid to do this to get themselves informed enough to make smart choices?

The result is that the people who run — not to mention the people who win — are the best politicians, not the best educators or agriculture administrators or military leaders or finance officials. And when you look at how our government operates, that often shows.

Ms. Scoppe can be reached at cscoppe@thestate.com or at (803) 771-8571.