It is an election in which members of the government and Armed Forces can expressly choose a different guy to follow and lose, whilst still having their top leader not only replaced, but empowered to replace every member in the chain of command replaced by the person they didn’t choose.

Which is totally legitimate, the President is elected through a constitutional process which is our law. That’s also why I think it makes a great counterpoint to your original assertion: you can choose who you want to follow, but who you actually follow isn’t always who you would choose.

If you join a company either because you like the CEO or you like the guy you’ll be immediately reporting to, everyone else in that chain was chosen by someone else. Your lack of choice in the matter does not absolve them of their responsibility to be leaders, the question becomes whether they have the qualities necessary to be good leaders. And if you are the CEO or directly report to him? Great! You win! Now you’re the guy others are looking up to and hopefully you have good leadership qualities yourself because people will look to you for leadership whether you want them to or not.

Not liking the person other people voted for doesn't change the fact people voted for them. We have words like commander for the military.

Accepting someone has power over you isn't following them. We don't call prisoners followers for example.

I think giving out titles only when people earn them encourages responsibility.