Would you rather have a monarchy of a government or a democracy in your country and why?

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Pros of a monarchy.

● No social and political division.

● Government works much more efficiently and is more stable.

● Conditions of the country will be more secure and far less crime.

● Government will have the best available public officials holding important positions throughout the country.

Cons:

● Unfair treatment of others and political power can be abused (but totally depends on the king in authority.)

● Some freedoms most likely will be gone i. e. no publically criticizing the royal family or disrespecting social officials like police officers among others freedoms like gay parades, porn abortions etc.

Pros of a democracy.

● The general public gets to elect politicians that represent their own interests whether good or bad.

● Every few years the populous can ask for change of their representatives.

● Far more freedoms whether good or bad.

Cons:

● Causes social and political division.

● Giving the people the power to vote who don't understand how government nor how the economy, energy, security etc works in depth causes voting in the wrong people into positions of power.

● Government operates and government agendas are slow and work far less efficient.

I want a monarchy government.

I want a democracy.

Other.

Updates

3 mo

Having a democracy or constitutional republic is a very stupid form of government because the people simply don't understand how actual government works nor all the things how affects a country.

Unless you have a major or doctorate in economics, energy etc then you actually don't understand the concepts in depths and that's very important so giving the people the right to vote is very stupid.

Since the beginning of time a country always had a king to rule the nation.

[abc3643]

Neither.

A society in which you are licensed to vote.
The license itself is free, but it is based on citizenship questions of the kind given on citizenship examinations for immigrants during the nationalization process. Suffrage is only for...

1) Humans...

2) who are at least 25...

3) and who are citizens and

4) once you are a citizen, you must pass a citizenship examination taken every subsequent 5 years to retain your eligibility to vote. You take the test after the 4th year since your last examination. During that last year, you may take the exam up to 3 times. If you fail all 3 attempts at your citizenship examination, you are still a citizen eligible to vote until 5 years since you last passed your citizenship examination, but, after that, you must wait at least 1 year before you can retake another citizenship examination. Once you pass then, your license to vote is reinstated.

Citizenship examinations are created from a database of hundreds of possible multiple-choice questions grouped into several categories. Each citizenship examination is created on-demand by an automated random selection process and judged and scored by a machine. A copy of each persons exam is given to them during the submittal process so they remember what answers they gave. Then, when the machine scores the examination, a second but scored copy of the examination is given back to the person so they have evidence that the machine graded their test and can learn from any mistakes.

For those who are blind or cannot read or do not speak English, they are permitted a proxy appointed or approved by the government, but rejectable by the person in favor of a different proxy, to read the questions to the person and mark down the appropriate answer.

Proxies themselves can be any suitably licensed-to-vote citizen including a family member.

When the person passes, they are immediately given a laminated "Voter ID" card. On the card is also printed the date of the last passed examination and a unique examination identifier. Since the person has a copy of that exam in hand, that is a de facto receipt of their examination. At the time of voting, they could carry their exam with them, but that shouldn't be necessary. However, they should have the exam ID with them. On the Voter ID card, the exam number is encoded (like a QR number) so no one immediately knows what the exam number is just by looking at the Voter ID card. The pollster takes the Voter ID card and has a machine read it. The exam ID that the machine decodes should match the number of the exam ID that the user has provided. (Thus, the Voter ID card does NOT need a photo.)

One this match occurs, the pollster, via the Voter ID card, documents that the person is now going to vote. The Voter ID card is NOT actually used during voting so voting remains anonymous.

One advantage to this system is that it doesn't officially exclude anyone who meets the minimal age and citizenship criteria, but only permits voting by people who actually understand how are government and society function thus we have only competent engaged voters. Even if a voter is deemed incompetent by failing the examination and losing their license, they can always reapply.

Another advantage is that it prevents voter fraud.

Another advantage is that it weeds out from voting those too young who lack maturity and emotional control. It also weeds out those who are beginning to become mentally incompetent like from dementia.

There are no property requirements to vote.

There are no racial or religious requirements to vote.

There are no language requirements to vote.

There is no poll tax.

Anyone who is sufficiently mature by meeting the minimum age and sufficiently cognizant of how the nation operates can vote. That's all.

=======

Another big change would be to have electoral fusion and the absolute rejection of political parties at the legal level. So, at the ballot, only candidate names are identified. Candidates could belong to one or multiple parties in this way. Besides, you vote for humans, not organizations. Political parties are not recognized as formal groups in any legal capacity outside of perhaps belonging to a tax class like a 501c (3) organization.

=======

I'd recommend lots of other changes too, but I have to go back to work now.

[ProbablyClueless]

I am so categorically disgusted by what the American people have done with democracy that I would be willing to consider a monarchy. These people have demonstrated that they can't handle the power to vote.

I began losing my faith in the American people in the early 2000s. 2020 completely destroyed it.

Frankly, I don't give a crap whether people have "good intentions." They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions for a reason. These emotional, vindictive, impulsive, self righteous assholes have absolutely destroyed the country.

[Anonymous]

Depends.
Monarchy works in places like Denmark and England because there's a long history of respect for them. It wouldn't work for somebody like Trump because he's a dip shit that nobody really likes and only he wants to be a dictator but claims everybody wants a dictator. He forgets the country he was voted into lead is America land of the free.

[ErebusD]

I do not support both democracy and monarchy. They have their strengths but their weaknesses have influenced the world terribly till this day and the excuse is blame a few people and then try to criticise them whilst the system itself is inherently faulty except in paper especially democracy

[Avicenna]

I can’t believe someone doesn’t realize that the monarchies in the UK and Denmark are constitutional monarchies where there monarchs do not hold power/aren’t head of government, making them not comparable to a US President.

[Dargil]

I would rather have a democratically elected Federal Republic. Ohh! We already have one.

We do not have a Democracy. "Our" or not, for electing our primary leader. That would be a democracy, AKA mob rule.

[DryGermanGuy]

„No matter how silly the idea of having a queen might be to us, as Americans, we must be gracious and considerate hosts.“
- Lt. Frank Drebin, The Naked Gun

[AviatorTom]

A democratic republic is, so far, the best form of government humans have created. No form of government is perfect.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

No it's not. A country should have one leader, not divided power.

[Dongie]

Monarchy by far! 40 years ago I wouldn't say this but after the fall of America to the freaks...

[AngryCarl2]

Democracy for sure. Voting doesn't affect anything but at least it's a way to vent every few years.

[DrPepper12]

Almost everything you listed about both is wrong once you break it down beyond generalizations

[Alex-Snow]

Democracy any day. Too bad we are loosing it in the USA

[exitseven]

I want a Constitutional Republic.

[noohair]

A Constitutional Republic

[seeyounexttuesday]

I prefer a Constitutional Representative Republic.