Direct Election of More Federal Posts.

[MrWonka]

Why do we allow an individual President to appoint so many different cabinet posts covering so many different aspects of our government? It's a really stupid idea when you really think about. In many states, the voters directly elect their Attorney General separately from the Governor. That is a better system which ensures that the AG can be independent of the Governorship and therefore hold the Governor accountable when necessary.

I propose we do something similar on the federal level. Make top federal positions like the AG, the head of the Department of Education, Agriculture, EPA, Fed, HUD, Health and Human Services... all of them subject to a general election by the people just like the President would be. In order to get on the ballot, a candidate could be required to obtain 1/3 vote in the Senate to maintain Senate Review and eliminate crackpot candidates.

A lot of people likely voted for a piece of **** like Trump because they liked his racism and tax cuts, but do they really want Bety Devos running education? Scott Pruit running the EPA? The AG could serve for four years but alternate with the President to ensure people have the ability to hold a president accountable after a couple of years. Even Supreme Court Justices could be elected this way. We could give them 25-year terms or even life long terms still, but separate their nomination from the President. I know for a fact that my Mother hated Trump's guts, but she voted for him anyway for one reason and one reason only. She's Pro-Life. That's it.

The President of the United States really only needs to be the Commander and Cheif of the Military. They can be primarily elected to handle the defense. Congress could still have oversite, and their budget would still have to be approved by Congress.

I would think there would be fairly bipartisan support for something like this. In the future, it is going to get more and more difficult for Republicans to elect Presidents, but maybe if they could convince the country to support a more business-friendly person to say... the department of commerce. Or better yet, if the President's only real job is to serve as Commander and Cheif it might be easier to elect someone who is more pro-Military.

The core problem with full-blown Socialism is the top-down nature of it. Too many decisions falling in the hands of one individual centralized leadership. The Presidency has become too powerful, and Congress is woefully inept to handle the modern world. A solution like this would divide up much of the power of the executive branch and prevent it from being exclusively controlled by one party at all times. I would think something like that should have bipartisan support.

 

[Mycroft]

Why do we allow an individual President to appoint so many different cabinet posts covering so many different aspects of our government? It's a really stupid idea when you really think about. In many states, the voters directly elect their Attorney General separately from the Governor. That is a better system which ensures that the AG can be independent of the Governorship and therefore hold the Governor accountable when necessary.

I propose we do something similar on the federal level. Make top federal positions like the AG, the head of the Department of Education, Agriculture, EPA, Fed, HUD, Health and Human Services... all of them subject to a general election by the people just like the President would be. In order to get on the ballot, a candidate could be required to obtain 1/3 vote in the Senate to maintain Senate Review and eliminate crackpot candidates.

A lot of people likely voted for a piece of **** like Trump because they liked his racism and tax cuts, but do they really want Bety Devos running education? Scott Pruit running the EPA? The AG could serve for four years but alternate with the President to ensure people have the ability to hold a president accountable after a couple of years. Even Supreme Court Justices could be elected this way. We could give them 25-year terms or even life long terms still, but separate their nomination from the President. I know for a fact that my Mother hated Trump's guts, but she voted for him anyway for one reason and one reason only. She's Pro-Life. That's it.

The President of the United States really only needs to be the Commander and Cheif of the Military. They can be primarily elected to handle the defense. Congress could still have oversite, and their budget would still have to be approved by Congress.

I would think there would be fairly bipartisan support for something like this. In the future, it is going to get more and more difficult for Republicans to elect Presidents, but maybe if they could convince the country to support a more business-friendly person to say... the department of commerce. Or better yet, if the President's only real job is to serve as Commander and Cheif it might be easier to elect someone who is more pro-Military.

The core problem with full-blown Socialism is the top-down nature of it. Too many decisions falling in the hands of one individual centralized leadership. The Presidency has become too powerful, and Congress is woefully inept to handle the modern world. A solution like this would divide up much of the power of the executive branch and prevent it from being exclusively controlled by one party at all times. I would think something like that should have bipartisan support.

Get started on writing a completely new Constitution and run it by me. I'll tell you what I think about it then.

 

[MrWonka]

Get started on writing a completely new Constitution and run it by me. I'll tell you what I think about it then.

The basics are already there... You simply take away the right of the President to nominate and control every department.

At the beginning of this country, the Presidency was intended to be more of a figurehead than anything else. It was someone who would be the face of the nation to the world who could respond quickly to military threats and other emergencies, but as time has passed the creation of numerous different specialized Federal Departments to oversee various different aspects of the country has put way too much power in the hands of a single executive.

Furthermore, the two-party system has left us with a horribly divisive adversarial system where half the country absolutely hates that executive no matter who they are. Why should you be forced to vote for a president you absolutely hate just because you can't trust the other side to pick Supreme Court Justices? People who are passionate about individual things like education, the environment, defense, Abortion... Why should they be forced to vote for a candidate they hate just because it's the only viable candidate that supports their ideas?

 

[Carjosse]

Why do we allow an individual President to appoint so many different cabinet posts covering so many different aspects of our government? It's a really stupid idea when you really think about. In many states, the voters directly elect their Attorney General separately from the Governor. That is a better system which ensures that the AG can be independent of the Governorship and therefore hold the Governor accountable when necessary.

I propose we do something similar on the federal level. Make top federal positions like the AG, the head of the Department of Education, Agriculture, EPA, Fed, HUD, Health and Human Services... all of them subject to a general election by the people just like the President would be. In order to get on the ballot, a candidate could be required to obtain 1/3 vote in the Senate to maintain Senate Review and eliminate crackpot candidates.

A lot of people likely voted for a piece of **** like Trump because they liked his racism and tax cuts, but do they really want Bety Devos running education? Scott Pruit running the EPA? The AG could serve for four years but alternate with the President to ensure people have the ability to hold a president accountable after a couple of years. Even Supreme Court Justices could be elected this way. We could give them 25-year terms or even life long terms still, but separate their nomination from the President. I know for a fact that my Mother hated Trump's guts, but she voted for him anyway for one reason and one reason only. She's Pro-Life. That's it.

The President of the United States really only needs to be the Commander and Cheif of the Military. They can be primarily elected to handle the defense. Congress could still have oversite, and their budget would still have to be approved by Congress.

I would think there would be fairly bipartisan support for something like this. In the future, it is going to get more and more difficult for Republicans to elect Presidents, but maybe if they could convince the country to support a more business-friendly person to say... the department of commerce. Or better yet, if the President's only real job is to serve as Commander and Cheif it might be easier to elect someone who is more pro-Military.

The core problem with full-blown Socialism is the top-down nature of it. Too many decisions falling in the hands of one individual centralized leadership. The Presidency has become too powerful, and Congress is woefully inept to handle the modern world. A solution like this would divide up much of the power of the executive branch and prevent it from being exclusively controlled by one party at all times. I would think something like that should have bipartisan support.

Electing positions can also be very bad, especially those in justice and law enforcement, see judges and sheriffs. I think all your plan would accomplish is increase uninformed voting and voter apathy. However making them responsible to the legislature would be a much better compromise.

 

[Lutherf]

Why do we allow an individual President to appoint so many different cabinet posts covering so many different aspects of our government? It's a really stupid idea when you really think about. In many states, the voters directly elect their Attorney General separately from the Governor. That is a better system which ensures that the AG can be independent of the Governorship and therefore hold the Governor accountable when necessary.

I propose we do something similar on the federal level. Make top federal positions like the AG, the head of the Department of Education, Agriculture, EPA, Fed, HUD, Health and Human Services... all of them subject to a general election by the people just like the President would be. In order to get on the ballot, a candidate could be required to obtain 1/3 vote in the Senate to maintain Senate Review and eliminate crackpot candidates.

A lot of people likely voted for a piece of **** like Trump because they liked his racism and tax cuts, but do they really want Bety Devos running education? Scott Pruit running the EPA? The AG could serve for four years but alternate with the President to ensure people have the ability to hold a president accountable after a couple of years. Even Supreme Court Justices could be elected this way. We could give them 25-year terms or even life long terms still, but separate their nomination from the President. I know for a fact that my Mother hated Trump's guts, but she voted for him anyway for one reason and one reason only. She's Pro-Life. That's it.

The President of the United States really only needs to be the Commander and Cheif of the Military. They can be primarily elected to handle the defense. Congress could still have oversite, and their budget would still have to be approved by Congress.

I would think there would be fairly bipartisan support for something like this. In the future, it is going to get more and more difficult for Republicans to elect Presidents, but maybe if they could convince the country to support a more business-friendly person to say... the department of commerce. Or better yet, if the President's only real job is to serve as Commander and Cheif it might be easier to elect someone who is more pro-Military.

The core problem with full-blown Socialism is the top-down nature of it. Too many decisions falling in the hands of one individual centralized leadership. The Presidency has become too powerful, and Congress is woefully inept to handle the modern world. A solution like this would divide up much of the power of the executive branch and prevent it from being exclusively controlled by one party at all times. I would think something like that should have bipartisan support.

We really shouldn't even have a president. Maybe we should just have a drum circle of dope smoking, tree hugging, ***** hat wearing hippies run the whole show and vote on stuff by "tinkling" their hands.

 

[apdst]

The basics are already there... You simply take away the right of the President to nominate and control every department.

At the beginning of this country, the Presidency was intended to be more of a figurehead than anything else. It was someone who would be the face of the nation to the world who could respond quickly to military threats and other emergencies, but as time has passed the creation of numerous different specialized Federal Departments to oversee various different aspects of the country has put way too much power in the hands of a single executive.

Furthermore, the two-party system has left us with a horribly divisive adversarial system where half the country absolutely hates that executive no matter who they are. Why should you be forced to vote for a president you absolutely hate just because you can't trust the other side to pick Supreme Court Justices? People who are passionate about individual things like education, the environment, defense, Abortion... Why should they be forced to vote for a candidate they hate just because it's the only viable candidate that supports their ideas?

You would have to amend The Constitution to do that. That's Mycroft's point.

 

[Bullseye]

Why do we allow an individual President to appoint so many different cabinet posts covering so many different aspects of our government? It's a really stupid idea when you really think about. In many states, the voters directly elect their Attorney General separately from the Governor. That is a better system which ensures that the AG can be independent of the Governorship and therefore hold the Governor accountable when necessary.

I propose we do something similar on the federal level. Make top federal positions like the AG, the head of the Department of Education, Agriculture, EPA, Fed, HUD, Health and Human Services... all of them subject to a general election by the people just like the President would be. In order to get on the ballot, a candidate could be required to obtain 1/3 vote in the Senate to maintain Senate Review and eliminate crackpot candidates.

A lot of people likely voted for a piece of **** like Trump because they liked his racism and tax cuts, but do they really want Bety Devos running education? Scott Pruit running the EPA? The AG could serve for four years but alternate with the President to ensure people have the ability to hold a president accountable after a couple of years. Even Supreme Court Justices could be elected this way. We could give them 25-year terms or even life long terms still, but separate their nomination from the President. I know for a fact that my Mother hated Trump's guts, but she voted for him anyway for one reason and one reason only. She's Pro-Life. That's it.

The President of the United States really only needs to be the Commander and Cheif of the Military. They can be primarily elected to handle the defense. Congress could still have oversite, and their budget would still have to be approved by Congress.

I would think there would be fairly bipartisan support for something like this. In the future, it is going to get more and more difficult for Republicans to elect Presidents, but maybe if they could convince the country to support a more business-friendly person to say... the department of commerce. Or better yet, if the President's only real job is to serve as Commander and Cheif it might be easier to elect someone who is more pro-Militar

The core problem with full-blown Socialism is the top-down nature of it. Too many decisions falling in the hands of one individual centralized leadership. The Presidency has become too powerful, and Congress is woefully inept to handle the modern world. A solution like this would divide up much of the power of the executive branch and prevent it from being exclusively controlled by one party at all times. I would think something like that should have bipartisan support.

The purpose of the Cabinet is to advise the President on pertinent issues and execute his directions. They are each charged with managing a specific branch of the Executive Branch. The Senate had to consent to each appointment and many of the subordinates of each Secretary. Isn't the enough?

 

[akyron]

Isn't that enough?

It will never be enough until regressives control every aspect of our lives

 

[MrWonka]

Electing positions can also be very bad, especially those in justice and law enforcement, see judges and sheriffs. I think all your plan would accomplish is to increase uninformed voting and voter apathy.

I disagree. It is the current system that causes uninformed voting and voter apathy. You have many people who don't care that much about a lot of things and don't have time to understand many things on a high level. However, they are deeply passionate about one thing or another. Case in point the example of my own mother. She's pro-life. That's the only reason she votes Republican. She doesn't know about or care about almost anything else. Yet because she's passionate about one stupid thing she voted for a horrible human being.

Both parties, but particularly Republicans love to use wedge issues to divide us. It is why millions of Americans vote against their own best economic interests. They have to choose between guns, god and race or Unions, Taxes, Education, Environment, and health care. They choose the stupidly to choose guns, god, and race first. Let's not force them to make such a choice.

If they have one thing that they care about then let them vote for a specific person who is in charge of that and let them make different choices about other things.

 

[Lutherf]

It will never be enough until regressives control every aspect of our lives

It would be a lot easier for them if they just decided that no Republicans could ever run for office and that the ones currently in office had to be removed immediately.

 

[MrWonka]

The purpose of the Cabinet is to advise the President on pertinent issues and execute his directions. They are each charged with managing a specific branch of the Executive Branch. The Senate had to consent to each appointment and many of the subordinates of each Secretary. Isn't the enough?

No, because there is one individual appointing them all. The result is that when the Presidency switches parties it radically alters the core mission of every single solitary one of these branches whether it should or not.

I hear people say they want a viable third party because none of the Major party candidates fully match their specific ideology and their tired of choosing the best of both worlds. Well, a third party system isn't realistically viable. Ranked Choice voting might help, but ultimately so long as it's one individual in charge of so many broad departments you're almost always going to have to pick at least one person you don't really want in charge of something. By making different people in charge of different things you can specifically choose someone you trust in education and the environment without having to choose someone whose Judicial Appointments you don't trust.

 

[MrWonka]

It will never be enough until regressive control every aspect of our lives

Remind us who wants to control a woman's reproductive system again?

 

[Mycroft]

The basics are already there... You simply take away the right of the President to nominate and control every department.

At the beginning of this country, the Presidency was intended to be more of a figurehead than anything else. It was someone who would be the face of the nation to the world who could respond quickly to military threats and other emergencies, but as time has passed the creation of numerous different specialized Federal Departments to oversee various different aspects of the country has put way too much power in the hands of a single executive.

Furthermore, the two-party system has left us with a horribly divisive adversarial system where half the country absolutely hates that executive no matter who they are. Why should you be forced to vote for a president you absolutely hate just because you can't trust the other side to pick Supreme Court Justices? People who are passionate about individual things like education, the environment, defense, Abortion... Why should they be forced to vote for a candidate they hate just because it's the only viable candidate that supports their ideas?

Oh...you have a LOT of writing to do, even if you don't know it.

Just "take away the right"? Who do you give it to? Who looks over their shoulder? Who makes sure they are doing their job? Who do they take direction from? Or do they do whatever they want regardless what the leader of the Executive Branch wants? What term of office? When are the elections held? Are they held at the State level? Popular vote? Electoral college?

Like I said, write it up and let me see it.

 

[akyron]

Remind us who wants to control a woman's reproductive system again?

Nobody.

Remind us who wants us to pay financially and morally for other peoples abdication of personal responsibility and personal bad decisions.

 

[MrWonka]

Oh...you have a LOT of writing to do, even if you don't know it.

Just "take away the right"? Who do you give it to?

The American People.

Who looks over their shoulder?

Why should I write a bunch of stuff if you're not going to read it? I already stated in my OP that 1/3rd of the Senate would be required to approve any candidate for any of these offices.

Who makes sure they are doing their job? Who do they take direction from?

Again the American People.

do they do whatever they want regardless of what the leader of the Executive Branch wants?

Yup. The funding for their office can be controlled by Congress, and Congress could overrule a decision they made the same way they could overrule the president. The checks of the supreme court would also apply.

What term of office? When are the elections held?

Depends on the office. For Supreme Court Justices I was thinking 25 years and whenever a vacancy is available.

Popular vote? Electoral college?

Popular vote obviously.

Like I said, write it up and let me see it.

Please. You're stalling for some reason. One does not need to read a lengthy legal document in order to discuss basic concepts and you know it.

 

[MrWonka]

Nobody.

Oh sorry, but the correct answer was Republicans.

Remind us who wants us to pay financially and morally for other peoples abdication of personal responsibility and personal bad decisions.

Oh, I'm worry were you trying to answer your own question with your previous answer?

Good choices do not always lead to good results, and bad choices do not always lead to bad results.

This is not a zero-sum game.

 

[Slavister]

People have hard enough time avoiding voting for an idiot for 1 post of the President. Do you really think the electorate has any idea about how to pick well for those other positions? You are dreaming. People elected a failed conman to create chaos and they got what they (we) deserved. I see no issue with the system here - it's working as intended. I don't think elections for all those other posts by the general public would make sense or lead to any kind of good result.

 

[Mycroft]

The American People.


Why should I write a bunch of stuff if you're not going to read it? I already stated in my OP that 1/3rd of the Senate would be required to approve any candidate for any of these offices.


Again the American People.


Yup. The funding for their office can be controlled by Congress, and Congress could overrule a decision they made the same way they could overrule the president. The checks of the supreme court would also apply.


Depends on the office. For Supreme Court Justices I was thinking 25 years and whenever a vacancy is available.


Popular vote obviously.



Please. You're stalling for some reason. One does not need to read a lengthy legal document in order to discuss basic concepts and you know it.

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2
Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.​

Figure out how you are going to rewrite this.

 

[Grokmaster]

Why do we allow an individual President to appoint so many different cabinet posts covering so many different aspects of our government? It's a really stupid idea when you really think about. In many states, the voters directly elect their Attorney General separately from the Governor. That is a better system which ensures that the AG can be independent of the Governorship and therefore hold the Governor accountable when necessary.

I propose we do something similar on the federal level. Make top federal positions like the AG, the head of the Department of Education, Agriculture, EPA, Fed, HUD, Health and Human Services... all of them subject to a general election by the people just like the President would be. In order to get on the ballot, a candidate could be required to obtain 1/3 vote in the Senate to maintain Senate Review and eliminate crackpot candidates.

A lot of people likely voted for a piece of **** like Trump because they liked his racism and tax cuts, but do they really want Bety Devos running education? Scott Pruit running the EPA? The AG could serve for four years but alternate with the President to ensure people have the ability to hold a president accountable after a couple of years. Even Supreme Court Justices could be elected this way. We could give them 25-year terms or even life long terms still, but separate their nomination from the President. I know for a fact that my Mother hated Trump's guts, but she voted for him anyway for one reason and one reason only. She's Pro-Life. That's it.

The President of the United States really only needs to be the Commander and Cheif of the Military. They can be primarily elected to handle the defense. Congress could still have oversite, and their budget would still have to be approved by Congress.

I would think there would be fairly bipartisan support for something like this. In the future, it is going to get more and more difficult for Republicans to elect Presidents, but maybe if they could convince the country to support a more business-friendly person to say... the department of commerce. Or better yet, if the President's only real job is to serve as Commander and Cheif it might be easier to elect someone who is more pro-Military.

The core problem with full-blown Socialism is the top-down nature of it. Too many decisions falling in the hands of one individual centralized leadership. The Presidency has become too powerful, and Congress is woefully inept to handle the modern world. A solution like this would divide up much of the power of the executive branch and prevent it from being exclusively controlled by one party at all times. I would think something like that should have bipartisan support.

Because the entire Cabinet is part of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

Not appointments require SENATE APPROVAL = "bi-partisan" input.

The problem?

 

[Bullseye]

No, because there is one individual appointing them all. The result is that when the Presidency switches parties it radically alters the core mission of every single solitary one of these branches whether it should or not.['quote] The core missions don't change that drastically. Defense still defends, for instance. His job is to evaluate and decide how each department does their jobs. If not for that what exactly do you think a President should do.

I hear people say they want a viable third party because none of the Major party candidates fully match their specific ideology and their tired of choosing the best of both worlds. Well, a third party system isn't realistically viable. Ranked Choice voting might help, but ultimately so long as it's one individual in charge of so many broad departments you're almost always going to have to pick at least one person you don't really want in charge of something. By making different people in charge of different things you can specifically choose someone you trust in education and the environment without having to choose someone whose Judicial Appointments you don't trust.

And they think ONE additional party is going to solve their problems? What about if you and I agree on almost everything; do you sacrifice some of your ideas to join my party or do I abandon some of mine to join yours?

 

[Port & Starboard]

Why do we allow an individual President to appoint so many different cabinet posts covering so many different aspects of our government? It's a really stupid idea when you really think about. In many states, the voters directly elect their Attorney General separately from the Governor. That is a better system which ensures that the AG can be independent of the Governorship and therefore hold the Governor accountable when necessary.

I propose we do something similar on the federal level. Make top federal positions like the AG, the head of the Department of Education, Agriculture, EPA, Fed, HUD, Health and Human Services... all of them subject to a general election by the people just like the President would be. In order to get on the ballot, a candidate could be required to obtain 1/3 vote in the Senate to maintain Senate Review and eliminate crackpot candidates.

A lot of people likely voted for a piece of **** like Trump because they liked his racism and tax cuts, but do they really want Bety Devos running education? Scott Pruit running the EPA? The AG could serve for four years but alternate with the President to ensure people have the ability to hold a president accountable after a couple of years. Even Supreme Court Justices could be elected this way. We could give them 25-year terms or even life long terms still, but separate their nomination from the President. I know for a fact that my Mother hated Trump's guts, but she voted for him anyway for one reason and one reason only. She's Pro-Life. That's it.

The President of the United States really only needs to be the Commander and Cheif of the Military. They can be primarily elected to handle the defense. Congress could still have oversite, and their budget would still have to be approved by Congress.

I would think there would be fairly bipartisan support for something like this. In the future, it is going to get more and more difficult for Republicans to elect Presidents, but maybe if they could convince the country to support a more business-friendly person to say... the department of commerce. Or better yet, if the President's only real job is to serve as Commander and Cheif it might be easier to elect someone who is more pro-Military.

The core problem with full-blown Socialism is the top-down nature of it. Too many decisions falling in the hands of one individual centralized leadership. The Presidency has become too powerful, and Congress is woefully inept to handle the modern world. A solution like this would divide up much of the power of the executive branch and prevent it from being exclusively controlled by one party at all times. I would think something like that should have bipartisan support.

And you were "MUM" about the last guy who stated that he....... "had a phone and a pen"

You people never stop.....lol!

 

[MrWonka]

And they think ONE additional party is going to solve their problems? What about if you and I agree on almost everything; do you sacrifice some of your ideas to join my party or do I abandon some of mine to join yours?

That is the point. We don't need to make such a choice, and we don't need 47 different policial parties. On a local level, we have those who run for the school board, and those who run for Sheriff. We have those who run for city council, and those who run for comptroller. While others run for city clerk positions. The Mayor doesn't just get to appoint them all himself. Why can't we do this on a Federal Level?

 

[MrWonka]

Because the entire Cabinet is part of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

That's the way it currently is, but that is not a reason it needs to remain that way or should remain that way. Why can't we have multiple executives in charge of different aspects of the country?

On a local level, you have individuals running for school board, sheriff, comptroller, clerks, judges, city council, chamber of commerce... The Mayor doesn't just get to appoint them all. If that works locally why can't we do something similar on the Federal Level?

 

[apdst]

That's the way it currently is, but that is not a reason it needs to remain that way or should remain that way. Why can't we have multiple executives in charge of different aspects of the country?

On a local level, you have individuals running for school board, sheriff, comptroller, clerks, judges, city council, chamber of commerce... The Mayor doesn't just get to appoint them all. If that works locally why can't we do something similar on the Federal Level?

That would be a cluster****.

 

[MrWonka]

That would be a cluster****.

Why? How is it any different than how things work on a local level? Why is it any different than how corporations have a CEO, a CFO, a COO...

Top-down decision making by a central leader is the core problem with Socialism. Why would you support such a thing?