[quote=Protagonist]I think the answer to this question is simple: the power vested in the state should be exactly proportional to how much you can trust its leadership. Theoretically, any system can be corrupted by stuffing it full of enough bad people, and any system can work if stuffed with enough good people. Ideally, the best governmental system would be a totalitarian system (hear me out) led by an infallible despot. However, since people are very, very fallible, despotism invariably fails. So, you just cut back on their power and make them a bit more accountable, and eventually you end up with a constitutional republic.[/quote]

If only Mr. House was real.

[quote=Yog Sothoth]I say human beings are meant to have hierarchies every culture in history has, hell even animals. I don't believe in idealistic thinking because normally it leads to disappointment, depression and anger. Me personally I believe in monarchy and I think democracy is overrated and chaotic, humans are too stubborn to all work together. I say bring back the old ways.[/quote]

You mean small city states with no real connection to each other besides maybe confederate agreements, a manageable population, Athenian Democracies, single transferable voting, economies backed by currency with actual value, and personal relationship between people and small, generally syncretic governments?

Oh, if only.

[quote=Magic Magnum]The main difference between Monarchy and Democracy is that a person is put in charge due to blood, not personal merit.The position is leader becomes a title of inheritance, something that a few lucky children 'deserve' no matter how rotten they are. Rather than a title/responsibly that one must earn.

I will agree that Democracy is far from perfect, it has many flaws, and gives too much voice to people who either don't care or don't know crap about the world in comparison to those who do know or care about the world. But it is definitely a better system that systematically raising the most ultimately spoiled/entitled brat of a child you could ever imagine and then letting them lead.[/quote]

I think a [i]type[/i] of democracy is ideal, taking into mind size of the population, size of the territory, neighboring countries or autonomous zones, agriculture, economy and general level of technology. I think an Athenian Democracy ((OPEN TO EVERYONE), with some bits thrown in from Communist Marxism, Anarchism and Socialism) would be great on a city and town level.

[quote=darkwolf687]Actually, thats wrong. Several european Countries (notably the Holy Roman Empire) had an elected king. Admitedly elected by the rich and important, and in the case of the HRE it devolved to the point where it may as well have been hereditary[/quote]

You know you're grasping when the Holy Roman Empire is your notable example. Not only was it not even really a country-- it was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. But that's just a personal bias against the HRE.

[quote=darkwolf687]The trouble with what your saying is that "Monarchy" and "Democracy" are broad and sometimes overlaping terms. You can have hereditary monarchy, you can have appointed monarchy etc. Democracy is the same, you can have republics, you can have communes (obviously there are no soverign communes, because they simply dont work as a national system.).
Hell, you can even have both monarchy and democracy at the same time (Constitutional monarchy with an elected governing body, or a monarch voted in by the people)[/quote]
Yessss, communes ftw.

[quote=darkwolf687]Saying the two concepts automatically equal one thing, or that the two are mutually exclusive, simply arent true. Hereditary monarchy suffers the problems you suggest, but monarchs can actually be appointed as well which can circumvent said problems. Likewise, democracies can still be dominated by rich brats who brought their way to the top or had more money to spend on a political campaign, and in the past it was common to restrict voting to the well off anyway, or they would be the only ones literate enough to vote.

And while some claim republics are better than monarchies, some republics can in fact be less democratic than monarchies, depending on how the two are run. 

Monarchy is the wild card really, it can overlap with both Democracy and Dictatorship, which are probably better suited to the discusion than "Monarchy" and "Democracy", or even "Ways of new" and "Ways of old" because the concept of democracy has been around for thousands of years. While the two still cover a range of government types, they do not really overlap as you cant have a "Democratic Dictatorship" by definition.[/quote]

What do you think about The Crown's basically 'Ceremonial Monarchy'?

[quote=darkwolf687]I agree, however, with a certain gentleman
"Democracy is the worst type of government, except all the other types which have failed."[/quote]
lel

[quote=Yog Sothoth]Besides a monarchy, I would say that a diverse authoritarian government could also work if done right[/quote]

Wouldn't every type of government ever work if 'done right?'