At the state level, positions like the Ohio Secretary of State and the Attorney General are elected by voters instead of being appointed by the governor. What does this say about how state government compares to the federal government?
These state-level officials answers directly to the voters
State governments are less responsive to the will of the people
The people have more control over the federal government than state governments
Ohio voters have more control over state government than they do over the federal government
The statement "Ohio voters have more control over state government than they do over the federal government" accurately reflects the idea that state governments are generally more directly accountable to the will of the people compared to the federal government. This is because state-level officials, such as the Ohio Secretary of State and the Attorney General, are elected directly by the voters, indicating that the people have the power to choose and influence those in positions of power within their state government.
In contrast, at the federal level, positions like the Secretary of State and the Attorney General are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. While federal government officials may ultimately be accountable to the people through their elected representatives in Congress, the appointment process and the larger scale of federal governance can create a perceived distance between the people and those in power.
Therefore, while it would be an oversimplification to claim that state governments are "less responsive" to the will of the people, it can be argued that state-level officials, being elected directly by voters, provide a more direct mechanism for citizens to shape their state government compared to the federal government.