Whether one uses the term democracy, republic, federation, or whatever, there is form and then there is substance. The US is perhaps a representative democracy in which the government is elected by the people, who then play no role in enactments. (Except they pay taxes to support whatever the government decides to do -- like invade Iraq.)

In the US, and elsewhere, there is critical but informal representation of large monied interests in the lobbies of the Senate and House (not quite literally). The informal representatives, arriving with briefcases full of money, are called "lobbyists". They help representatives write legislation that affects their business areas (like health care), and they underwrite the elected representatives next election -- or the last one, if it isn't paid for yet.

There is also the permanent government -- which isn't elected. It's the various administrative and military branches of government that continue uninterrupted decade to decade.

The official system, elected representative government, is more or less pure and wholesome. The unofficial system where money buys policy is a system of deep corruption. Since it is conducted under the table, people do not receive daily reports on its activities. Besides being conducted under the table, the meetings are not open to people who are not playing the game. It's very much a "pay to play" system.

The unofficial system of government in the US is the foundation and cause of our extremely expensive health care system.

That's the substance. Never mind the form.

I'll give you an example, what is the best government for the U.S.A? — Sigmund Freud

The "best" government is not knowable by us because America is too complex. If you ask a chess grandmaster what the best chess strategy is, they won't be able to tell you. They can only tell you what is the best strategy they happen to know.

The American government gets some things right and some things wrong. I can tell you where what what improvements can be made, but i cannot tell you what the very best economic path forward is, or what would be the best judicial/penal system, or exactly what electoral reforms would promote the health of American democracy, but here are some suggestions:

Overhaul the prison system and de-privatize it. Focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment.

Abolish the electoral college and ensure fair national coverage for more than just the two main parties.

Ensure universal healthcare.

Nationalize the energy sector and invest heavily in alternatives to fossil fuel based energy sources and delivery technology.

Eventually prepare to offer a universal income as automation and artificial intelligence begins to represent a greater and greater share of more and more of the overall wealth production.

Many of the above proposed changes are highly controversial and are fraught with dilemmas, but at the very least i think they represent better or soon to be better "forms" for the American government to take. These are only national policies though, as international politics (and it's moral ramifications) are an entirely different can of worms.

Here's an article from this week's New York Times Magazine:

FROM THE MAGAZINE
How to Get Rich in Trump’s Washington
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
His presidency has changed the rules of influence in the nation’s capital — and spawned a new breed of lobbyist on K Street.
167 Comments — NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

we don't need to know your political views, we are talking about democracies, not what our favourite policies would be

Policies don't make a democracy, the ways those policies are made make a democracy or a dictatorship

Ironically though, democracy itself entails "talking about what our favorite policies would be".

Asking "what is the ideal form of government for America" must then entail a discussion about particular policies if we're to move beyond "a democratic one" as an answer.

"A government that serves the people, can adapt, and improve" is a great answer but it doesn't serve us much unless we're debating whether or not to defenestrate democracy. As I said, a useful answer to the question about what kind of government we should have (with useful specificity that is) entails addressing specific policies in the context of specific political, economic, and social circumstances.

Just as a side note, does anyone here believe that Communism is a good ideology?

What kind of system of government might be better than a system where the citizenry elects representatives. — Wayfarer

Apparently, according to what I have been reading, elites have never trusted common people with any role in government and some of today's elites are taking that to the extreme of saying that democracy is a failure and that we need powerful AI to replace all humans in the job of governing.

Although there is no such thing as a perfect system of government, I would quite like to know what form of government is the closest to being perfect? — Sigmund Freud

Me, ruling you all.

as in, "one ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them" -- that sort of thing?

Some of the ideas of Marx and other socialists are very good ideas, indeed. "Marx", "Socialism", "Communism", etc. are all very loaded words, of course. What you mean by "communism" might not be quite the same meaning that I would give to it.

Harry Hindu
as in, "one ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them" -- that sort of thing? — Bitter Crank

"Kneel!

Is this not simpler? Is this not your natural state? It is the unspoken truth of humanity - that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes you life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel."

-Loki to the humans in the Avengers movie.

What is the ideal government? — Sigmund Freud

A contradiction in terms. :s

I would quite like to know what form of government is the closest to being perfect? — Sigmund Freud

Whichever one the people being governed trust the most.

ome of today's elites are taking that to the extreme of saying that democracy is a failure and that we need powerful AI to replace all humans in the job of governing. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I'm not seeing anyone suggesting that AI ought to govern, I think that idea is science fiction. But certainly democracy is under threat, it's even openly questioned in this Forum. Hey I can see a lot wrong with democracies in practice, but again, what are the alternatives? Look at China - their human rights record is appalling. Hundreds of human rights lawyers have been jailed or simply disappeared over the last few years in China - try and bring that up as a Chinese citizen, and expect a knock at the door. Russia is a democracy only in name - one reason Putin has such high approval ratings is because opinions are monitored, disapprove, and expect a knock at the door.

Actually, the main reason Plato was against democracy was because of the threat of demagogues seizing power:

A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ (from Greek δημαγωγός, a popular leader, a leader of a mob, from δῆμος, people, populace, the commons + ἀγωγός leading, leader)[1] or rabble-rouser is a leader in a democracy who gains popularity by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation.[1][2][3][4] Demagogues overturn established customs of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so.

Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, it is possible for the people to give that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.[5] Demagogues have usually advocated immediate, forceful action to address a national crisis while accusing moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness or disloyalty.

Does that ring any bells?

I shall, a right is something that a person is entitled to no matter what.
A right is not only meant to protect them but also give them a decent standard of living.
A right is also supposed to restrict people from taking certain actions.
The state must make sure these rights are upholded.

An example of an undeniably important right is the right to life, or the right not to be murdered.

I take a slightly different view. I think rights must be good, derivative of what is just and fair which are incorporated into legitimate practices, not just ideals (Plato). Justice is a value which is only available in a democracy, a way to make relationships between men un-arbitrary.

Policies don't make a democracy, the ways those policies are made make a democracy or a dictatorship

Yea, I agree with that in a democracy policies are inclusive, they apply as much to those in power as they apply to those who are powerless. There is no one or group above the policies that people have constructed as policy and they have accepted. Justice as a value, is only possible in a democratic form of government.

But if you remove the ability of the citizenry to elect representatives, then what alternatives can be considered, and by whom? — Wayfarer

>:O - the citizens never choose what gets done anyway in a democracy. Those given the buttons do ;)

Who will be deciding what government is, and what it should do, if it's not the inhabitants of the nation being governed. — Wayfarer

A monarch, who, unlike a democratically elected leader, is there for life, and hence doesn't have to take decisions for the short-term so that he gets elected the next time around, but can rather take the decisions required to maintain the stability of his country so that he can leave his country in a good state, and pass it on his descendants.

A democrat has no interest in the long term well being of the country. The whole interest is to take as much as possible as quickly as possible away from the country, because he doesn't own it. He doesn't care for the country, he just wants to profit from it for the short time it is in his hands.

A monarch — Agustino

So that explains why you go into bat for The Donald.

A democrat has no interest in the long term well being of the country... — Agustino

Strange, I thought the Soviet Union had fallen.

A democrat has no interest in the long term well being of the country. — Agustino

Neither democracy, nor dictatorship, nor benevolent pisspot can effectively plan for a future beyond the human horizon -- which is, generally, not very distant. There are some examples of long range planning:

The Dutch plan for the long run because their existence as a nation in a bowl (20' below sea level in some places, with the ocean lapping up against their bowl) absolutely requires them to think about long-term trends. Maybe they think in terms of a century.

A few people plant hardwoods. A maple, an oak, a walnut, a butternut, a birch, all take at least 60 years to produce nice wood. 80 more likely. In those 60 years, some attention needs to be paid to the trees.

Weedy conifers mature in maybe 30 years -- fast enough to replant clear cut forests with re-harvest in mind (for paper, oriented strand-board, etc.) Even greedy companies can manage that.

Outside of examples like that, we do not--maybe can not--look down the road much more than a quarter century.

A monarch, who, unlike a democratically elected leader, is there for life, and hence doesn't have to take decisions for the short-term so that he gets elected the next time around, but can rather take the decisions required to maintain the stability of his country so that he can leave his country in a good state, and pass it on his descendants.

A monarch who is above the law is a sad conception. The justice of a tyrant can never, in principal or in fact can be just or fair, even when the it does social good. I think this conception is derivative from the absolute program of religions which are all about the existence of God on earth.

The best form of government is World Government.

Naa man, lets like, make, like, ... Elon Musk the God Emperor of all mankind!

Surely if we had one genius and clearly benevolent central ruler who could just cut through any and all red tape we would be living the utopic dream before we knew it! Who was that old dude from "Gladiator" (2000)? One of those guys!

Obviously Musk is too busy God Emperoring Mars, so who else among us is ready to accept the most humble and graceful mantle of "philosopher king" that we, the unwashed masses, so sorely and deeply yearn for?

who else among us is ready to accept the most humble and graceful mantle of "philosopher king" that we, the unwashed masses, so sorely and deeply yearn for? — VagabondSpectre

I sometimes fantasize about winning a megalottery and how I would spend it on promoting and experimenting with "good causes". Does that qualify me?

I sometimes fantasize about winning a megalottery and how I would spend it on promoting and experimenting with "good causes". Does that qualify me? — Jake Tarragon

I'm sold. And if anyone disagrees, I've got my pitch fork handy!

hehe

Surely if we had one genius and clearly benevolent central ruler who could just cut through any and all red tape we would be living the utopic dream before we knew it! — VagabondSpectre

That's not far from Plato's conception of 'philosopher kings' - sages beyond self-interest, who possess the wisdom and skills to steer the populace in the right direction. Terrific idea, but they might be in short supply, and how would they be nominated? Elon Musk is an inspiring character, but his erstwhile business partner, Peter Theil, seems a lot less so.

Naa man, lets like, make, like, ... Elon Musk the God Emperor of all mankind!

Tut, tut, :)

Justice by fiat is not just, it is arbitrary, a secularized form of divine command theory.

So that explains why you go into bat for The Donald. — Wayfarer

Exactly.

Strange, I thought the Soviet Union had fallen. — Wayfarer

Well, you thought wrong ;)

What a mass of contradictions you are, Agustino. The one politician who most egregiously exploits all the flaws you see in democracy, is the same one you express admiration for.