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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[Luopio27]

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

[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.

[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.