Derp, I forgot that I had made a post here that people might have replied to. :/

[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]

True, though it was not the norm.
Plus the added flaw like you said, it devolves to the point of basically being hereditary anyways.

[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]

I know that, the UK is living proof of that.
I was making the comparison of when one system is directly compared to another though.
Plus, cases like the UK are a special case. 
They are not a Monarchy that holds any political power (Other than signing laws, but they never deny a proposed law. It's a formality, one they can very easily be thrown out over if they try using it to deny a law).
By all intents and purposes they are a tourist attraction, employee's who are hired to be something for tourist to come and look at. That's why they manage to co-exist with a Democracy. Because the Monarchy is a Monarchy in name only, it holds none of the legal effects or powers that most Monarchies used to (Including UK's in the past). 

I should clarify though. I do not hate Monarchs, I'm not going to look at a Monarch and go "You're a Monster!" simply because they are a Monarch.
You can definitely get some good Monarchs, but simply because Monarchy does have some good eggs doesn't mean the system is not prone to creating bad eggs.
Which to be fair, so is Democracy. But generally Democracy produces less bad eggs than a Monarchy does.

[quote=darkwolf687]Likewise, democracies can still be dominated by rich brats who bought 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.[/quote]

True, but it's harder. And is still reliant on getting public approval.
While all a Monarch needs to do is be born, or simply [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8afaQFLSTH4]out sprint the other on sitting on the throne and make one sneaky power play.[/url]

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

Which is basically what I'm saying here.

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

The issue with those is they don't really allow freedom of speech or independent thought.
So if someone goes bad/wrong, you can be very badly punished for disagreeing.

And all systems that rely on trying to kill/silence opposing thought are systems that history has slowly been eradicating.

[quote=Darcs]I think a 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]

Your main issue there is that it restricts it to men voting.
Yes this can be fixed by letting women vote, but then it's honestly not much different from normal democracy.
And I doubt the argument here is "A system where women can't vote is better".

So I'm [i]assuming[/i] you mean some sort of system to prioritize more eligible voters.
Which might seem nice on paper. But in practice, it's far too open to abuse. Essentially turning a democracy into a "Only those who agree with me can vote" sort of system.
As much as I admit a big flaw of democracy is that anyone can vote, even if they care nothing at all for the world around them I do realize implementing a system to address it is very risky.