Is it better that the people vote to elect the person who will lead their country or is it better to have a hereditary system?

[Julie4]

[Ευδεμονια]

I sincerely think that giving totally the power to people is a wrong thing to do. It’s not like I’m against democracy, but in general we have all seen that voters can elect people who really harm the country and create only damage and destruction. This happens also in electoral system (like here in Italy) where people only vote for parties and the premier is elected by parliament members.
I think honestly there should be a mix.
On the other hand, an absolute monarchy is something equally dangerous since all decisions are up only to the king and if the king is a mad and evil person (and there’s plenty of mad kings, as history and actuality tell us), his decisions can harm really the country.


I think honestly the better system should be halfway. The people should elect the members of parliament and the king with his counsellors guarantee the integrity of the nation and watch over the actions of the parliament. I’ll insert also judiciary class, that should have the power to correct and approve laws independently by politics and by the king… It should be a balanced system, with equal powers between the three parts, so for every political decision there should be the agreement at least of two parts. This way, I think, the raise of dictators or making harmful things for the country should be avoided.

[RealMarek]

In the US, the founders were dead-set against democracy. John Adams in particular, but others as well, said that even the representative republic they set up would fail if the people were not virtuous. The qualifications to vote were such that initially only a small percentage were allowed to vote and the Constitution had all kinds of anti-democratic mechanisms in place, many of which have been gutted. Most people are nowhere near qualified to exercise even a small amount of sovereign power, and are really educated just enough to be propagandized. The vote ends up serving as a means for the ruling elite to avoid accountability for their actions. They can do anything and then say the vote legitimizes it, even if in reality power rests with a class that dominates the bureaucracy, corporations, and media. The only way to stop this will be to have a president who rules more or less like a king (like Washington, Lincoln, and FDR) and clears out the oligarchy, or a caesar figure comes along and breaks the system.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

You definitely get it. 👍👍

[dustybiker]

It seems to matter most to people in political positions such votes will help gain personal power. Politics is political chess = selfish. Less people and country.

[menina]

Voting is better in my opinion. An hereditary system sounds unfair and stupid to me.

[Sandeeppingping]

Have you seen the "democracy is a government for the people by the people, but the people are retarded" meme? that's how I feel about democracy, I don't know if making it hereditary is better though, my preferred one would be one in which a good leader has ultimate power and uses that regardless of what anyone else thinks (anyone, majority minority gays whatever) for the benefit of the country, even if that means showing up in a different country and taking over it.. With democracy that shit can't be pulled off without some alibi

[Chazmatazz269]

Elected officials are NOT leaders. They are public servants. The entire system revolves around them doing what WE elected them for. WE are the authorities, they are SERVANTS. If they don’t do what we expect, we replace them with someone who will. One of the reasons the US is a dumpster fire right now is because voters have let the frauds in office convince them it’s the other way around.
That said, if people don’t figure out that very simple concept, we might as well revert to a lineal monarchy. Couldn’t possibly do any worse.

[RealMarek]

The reason is that it is the other way around. We have an oligarchy inhabiting the skin suit of a republic. There was a study done that showed legislation routinely does the opposite of what popular opinion wants. The only way to break an oligarchy is with monarchy, whether that is a king, dictator, or strong president who controls the USG more or less like a king like Washington, Lincoln, or FDR did.

[BCA6010]

Definitely not hereditary leadership. Voters can make idiotic decisions, sure, but in a government with elected leaders, that's something that can be peacefully rectified in the next election. A bad hereditary ruler (or a ruler for life) can't be gotten rid of without some level of unrest or insurrection.

[Adam1978]

We need decentralized democracy where people vote for their leaders, no one should be picking who you can vote for, that is the problem today. That someone is picking the candidates. That's not true democracy. Because that person or those people has the power.

[Agent_Elflord]

Electing, but at the same time I also believe voters have very little power and that there is a deep state that is trying to control everything. In America, I believe both sides are in kahoots with each other and are playing the American people for fools with their lies.

[Sixgunsound]

Most countries have gotten away from the hereditary system, because not every generation of a royal family is as capable as the ones who made them royal in the first place.

[MiseriaCantareAFI]

Seems that we never really moved on

Remember the bush's

And it looked like trump was going to have his sons and or daughters try and run too. Can you imagine those idiots being in power. OMG, I would weep for the country if a guy like Eric Trump was the president of the united states of america. Not the confederacy like the south wants again

[Snsl153]

I'm a monarchist, so I'll go with the hereditary system. Besides, as W. Churchill once observed, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" (quoting from memory).

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

It's better in a hereditary kingdom system but in such case the man must fear the lord God, otherwise it's a total disaster waiting to happen.

In a democracy the system works well but a big percentage of the population must be educated otherwise you have people voting in the wrong people into power which leads to a disaster eventually.

[AviatorTom]

A combination of the two, like the UK's constitutional monarchy, is probably the best. It provides for conflict-free continuity while giving the common people a voice in government.

[exitseven]

Voting for leadership is the best. It s not perfect but it is better that people have a choice instead of having a monarch who just happened to be born into a leadership role.

[abhi44444]

In India I say it like hell most or every politian are greede and uneducated they have most money of country they don't try to develop country they fight each or make us fight each other and now time they even control media fully

[TroyDT]

It's better if the government is limited in its powers to the tasks of protecting people and their property. At that point all that matters is efficiency.

[Cubus]

In hereditary system you save money on elections and in most hereditary systems the ruler has no real power and the Prime Minister is ruling.

[Julie4]

Me if there is a return of a monarch in my country it is necessary that it him is the power, as my king Charles X said "I would rather saw wood than to reign in the way of the king of England.

[Pudsmucker]

If we had a royalty system we'd be like the king and queen of England or some dictator that will not allow us to speak our minds do the things we want to do or worship the way we want.

[dustybiker]

England hasn’t exactly run that way for some time.

[jimmy2]

Right now America is at a cross road. Democrats are evil for the most part. Republicans want to safe America where Democrats want to destroy. So I will vote only Republican as as far as many are like me since we don't want America to be destroyed

[cth96190]

Both systems have flaws, but I have more faith in a monarchy than democracy.

[Luopio27]

Wish people would vote for the changes, not for people who get a certain job. Polititions can promise one thing and deliver another.

[pizzalovershouse]

Can't say but I don't like when they say everything is a lie about them or I should say it's a witch hunt way to much

[RandomGuy1030]

I would say good times and bad times last longer in monarchies. Under trump the usa was really changing directions. Then biden got in there and fucked it up.

[Roseboy]

constitutional monarchy >>>>>>>>

[ArtemisSilver]

It's better to have directly democracy via computer network.

[Sixgunsound]

So no democracy at all.

[ArtemisSilver]

en.wikipedia.org/.../E-democracy

[Ευδεμονια]

In my country there’s a party that tried to do so. It didn’t ended well… this system is applicable only in very digitalised and modern countries, or you’ll exclude those who don’t have access to internet or don’t have the capabilities to use it.

[ArtemisSilver]

Obviously to work it would require ubiquitous access.

Even a hybrid system where elected officials frame the questions on which the people vote would be better than the bullshit puppets shows that masquerade as democracy today.

[Ευδεμονια]

Sure calling people directly to decide on nation issues could be a good way to involve them more than the actual systems, so with referendums via internet.
On the other hand, I have only two doubts:
1) how can normal people decide on complicate issues with global consequences, like “how has the country X to believe in the global chessboard play, id example with China?”. I bet every one of us has an answer itself but who can manage to foresee and handle consequences?
2) what’s the usage of a political class, if the decisions are all taken by the people? Politicians are reduced only to mere executors.

[Ευδεμονια]

Mine is not a critic to the system, it’s only things I saw during the period the political party I said before experimented “direct democracy” here with its platforms

[ArtemisSilver]

1) Educate people properly, and set the bar for voting to require at least average intelligence and a term of civil or military service.

2) The political class as it it currently exists should be abolished, as they are on the whole, power hungry and place self interest above all else and are essentially the tools of the oligarchs who fund them, and their assorted lobbyists. The degree of corruption is appalling, and extends to the point where the good of the people is rarely considered as a first or even second priority.

[Ευδεμονια]

1) For what concerne people education you find me completely in agreement with you. Also with current system I think there should be a minimum level to access to voting system, but… who will decide the CORRECT education path for people? Who will establish rules? I mean, there should be avant-Garde politicians that will “sacrifice” their political career in order to assure people a better education and a proper formation… does this special politicians exist? And… will be this level of education sufficient to people to correctly decide about things that may alter the global assets of the country? I don’t know…

2) you talk of corruption, I agree totally with that vision. Actual political class is a disaster. I speak for my personal experience in my country… we had that political party that proposed direct democracy saying these exact things you’re saying. They wanted to “open the parliament like a can of tuna” and their elected members of parliament were common people with 2 characteristics: everyone should be honest and no one should be involved previously with politics. They showed a fresh new face and their purposes were to fight corruption, go against monopoles and oligarch powers, give dignity to people and go against politics against environment.
Results? The party members showed an ENORMOUS incompetence, especially during official encounters with foreign powers… and they had to change EVERY single point of their plan, since they promised everything without thinking at the achievability of the points, thinking that “being honest” should be a sufficient requirement to do so. They only revealed to be a more populist version of the actual parties… and the direct democracy has been a failure since there was so few people voting that way and on so complicate matters that was really embarrassing… can you imagine an housewife voting for a question like “should we abrogate the article 5 comma 3 of law 25/1956 for career of public magistrates?”

[ArtemisSilver]

Well realistically it would take a noble tyrant to sweep the board clean and build the new system. A philosopher king, who would willingly relinquish his power after finishing the great work.

What it means to be a citizen would have to change to reflect the classical meaning.

People of higher intellect, and or longer civil or military service should have more voting power.

Oligarchs should have to make their arguments openly to the people, who will judge them accordingly.

Education would have to be universal, and reward merit first.

Political parties and partisan behavior should be banned.

Great effort should be made to balance local and national need and power modeled in the same general way so that there are no neglected fringe regions where revolts might be driven by neglect or exploitation.

The soft path can also work, but without a philosopher king change would be slow, hard won and iterative, as well as prone to setback.

[Sixgunsound]

@Ευδεμονια if there is a system which can eliminate the political class where do I sign up?

[Sixgunsound]

@artemissilver requiring anything of people like giving something back to their country to get its privileges is racist…or something. Well done, I agree people should have to contribute to the country directly to get anything from it. It forces the people to be more careful with the decisions they make about the future of the nation. When someone has to pay for something or stand in the military ranks during wars they vote for it suddenly makes them less keen to vote for it. Without any kind of military or civil service experience and without paying taxes people should not be allowed to vote. It’s not fair to those who have something to lose if the decisions about it are made by those who won’t suffer the consequences.

[Ευδεμονια]

@ArtemisSilver Your discourse reminds me the Republic of Plato. But both your design and his has a little defect: who can elect a benevolent dictator/ a leviathan/ a king philosopher? Who can assure he will do everything right? Are you the one who must be elected? What if What’s good for you isn’t good for me?

[Ευδεμονια]

@Sixgunsound there’s no possibility for a system without a political class, except for a system with very few people. Like Ancient Greek cities, they had a form of direct democracy with all (almost, the majority) of citizens involved in decisions. But the key must be the FEW people you should involve.. you can’t involve more people than those living in a small town (10k? 20k?) or the decisional process would be too slow, having to listen to everyone opinions.

[ArtemisSilver]

You don't elect such a king, they simply happen, and are essentially miraculous. So we're left with the slow iterative option.

[Ευδεμονια]

@ArtemisSilver you make me think about an enlightened ruler, like those in XVIII century gave in Europe a big role to Science and Philosophy and gave the basis for Illuminist reforms. But I think it will be very difficult to have such thing, I appreciate your optimism but I don’t think such a good enlightened reformist will fall from the sky.

[ArtemisSilver]

They'd be most likely to appear as a unifying warlord or emperor after a major dark age such as the one looming now. We could also potentially create one in the form of an AI demigod, but that's extremely dangerous.

[Ευδεμονια]

@ArtemisSilver sure an AI demigod is really dangerous, seems coming from a dystopian world.
In general it’s a bit obscure vision of the future, since every imperial form or warlord will come over after a war or a catastrophe… sincerely I don’t hope humanity has to face such events in order to change.

[ArtemisSilver]

I hope so too, but the world is moving quickly that direction already.

[Ευδεμονια]

@ArtemisSilver let’s see what will happen. I agree with you and the signals are very alarming.

[ArtemisSilver]

None the less it's always good to meet someone else who's awake.

[Sixgunsound]

Harlan Ellison wrote a story titled I have no voice, and I must scream about an AI dictatorship. Creepy, scary, and plausible.

[Sixgunsound]

*I have no mouth*

[Anonymous]

Of the two, I'd say voting. Honestly, just randomly assigning positions by lottery is likely to work better than a hereditary system.

[maximumpower]

Election.
Didn't they teach history where you went to school?

[juanchi1008]

And didn’t they taught you all the times that democracy failed. Monarchy is still the way to go.

[maximumpower]

@juanchi1008 Yeah - right - and you really believe that? Get an education, you obviously need it.

[juanchi1008]

You should also read some books. Look at how European monarchies dominated the world. And look at how democracies all around the globe fail.

[maximumpower]

@juanchi1008 Again, you really need an education.
I got my shingle - a couple of them, actually. You should really get yours.

[Reijen]

With perhaps a little tweaking, America's electoral college system is a pretty good idea.

[WhiteBoyChill]

If its Trump’s family I say hereditary all the way

[Agent_Elflord]

Nah, Barron is the only Trump I want.

[anylolone]

Generally voting is better.

[landingout2]

its fake like all the other stuff

[Anonymous]

Fuk Trump