Current Events > If you had to pick between these leaderships...

(+) Yeah! (+)

In this scenario, you can determine for yourself what constitutes "bad" and "good" within each situation, based on your own core values (but use extremes).

The president will serve 8-year terms upon election (with a three term limit, should they continue to win). They are supposed to uphold a proper constitution, so the scope of their terribleness is somewhat limited, but things will still be objectively bad in all areas of daily life, just not ridiculously so. Their political opponents will be equally inept, but in different ways (unknown). Every demographic across the country will be better represented overall, with nobody doing particularly well but not suffering.

The hereditary ruler will reign for the next 30 years until their death, at which point their child will take over. There's a 50% chance said child continues down the existing path. Anyone who embraces the monarch's policies will be fulfilled, while dissenters will suffer. The only limitations of the monarch are specifically as follows (and nothing more): freedom of speech is guaranteed (excluding badmouthing the royal family), there's a fair minimum wage / maximum work week, and nobody may be punished for crimes without a legitimate reason accompanied by some sort of evidence.
---

first

The first option. The people can vote the leader out of power.
---

Monarchy is a gamble. Thomas Paine said it best: "One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise, she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion.

In other words, sometimes hereditary monarchy gives us either great monarchs or lousy ones.
---

The hereditary monarch option makes me think of Thailand, and things seems pretty great there from a foreign visitor's perspective.

Bad mouthing or insulting the Royal family is punishment enforced by the law, but it's not like you freely want to bash for whatever reason because that's a waste of energy.
---

monarchy. if things take a turn for the worse, I think there's more likely to be a revolution against an absolute ruler than against an inept president
---

The first

There's no guarantee that the monarch's successors will be equally benevolent, whereas the elected president can be replaced at any time.
---

I don't think I emphasized this enough: Their political opponents will be equally inept, but in different ways (unknown). You could be trading a leader who bankrupts the country for one who leads it into constant war and racks up tons of deaths and international retribution.

Nobody else you elect will possibly be good in this scenario. The "suffering" I was referring to "option1" not having meant bottom-of-the-barrel stuff like living in Somalia or Burma, the "bad in all areas of daily life, just not ridiculously so" implies stuff about as bad as the great depression or whatever you consider to be the worst a developed nation with elected officials could imaginably be without collapsing.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

I don't think I emphasized this enough: Their political opponents will be equally inept, but in different ways (unknown). You could be trading a leader who bankrupts the country for one who leads it into constant war and racks up tons of deaths and international retribution.

Yes, I would rather continue living in the United States as it currently is, than live in a monarchistic state.
---

Obviously the monarch. I'm guaranteed 30 years of a good leader and governance. I can move towards the end of that.
---