Here is the plan.

1. You have to qualify for the job, first require 30,000 hours working in the private sector.
2. You have a 1/4 mile foot race. Top 5 qualify.
3. You have a jeopardy type game to find winner.

Voting is immoral it makes majority rule, or worse the one or two with the most money rule.

any improvements? Maybe screen for high moral character.

Having 5 former athletes play jeopardy for the fate of the nation is one of the better suggestions you've ever made.

Your proposal is funnier than anything Russel Brand has ever done.

Or we could change lobby laws.

Your idea is better imo.

So having an able-body is a more important leadership quality than having an able-mind? And trivia knowledge is the only knowledge which is significant? I'd rather leave up to the whims of voters and the potential to solve systemic problems with education and awareness.

also, I guess you have to be a career private-sector, regulation-skirting douche bag

Who you got in the mentally ill generalizations: Jiggs labeling private sector workers douchebags vs. steelhouse white hot hatred of all things union and teachers.

Or Gambool white knighting all things establishment

I rage against the ragers against the machine.

The idea is to avoid the voting which leads to majority rule. Why is majority or mob rule bad, consider the lynch mob. Consider certain candidates supported by certain lobbying groups.

Maybe you have a city of 1000 and 107 qualify for being the mayor, in control of the taxes. Suppose you want to live in a nice city that has the best roads in the country. To do this by a careful bid process you might need $100,000 to build, improve, and maintain the roads a year. If you leave it to an elected official who spends $10,000 on his campaign, you might only have a candidate that will give you $30,000 worth of road repair and $70,000 of fraud. The demographic of the mayor candidate is a lawyer with no knowledge in roads. The road contractor rarely seeks elected office.

Maybe a city with no taxes but several endowment funds. Thus, the police might have an endowment fund, the roads might have an endowment fund, schools might have an endowment fund, and if an endowment fund becomes corrupt, you can always start a new endowment fund. Thus no direct property or income taxes would ever be collected.

You you might be required to donate $1000 to any endowment fund of your choosing, instead of electing officials. As long a everyone is required to donate the same amount. not progressive taxes, flat, but fixed. Rich people can expected to donate more as an advertisement of their business.

Are you grossly misinformed or cognitively crippled by paranoia?