[rlongstaff]

Although the idea of a 'United Democracies' or whatever it gets called sounds appealing, it has many flaws.

One of which you highlighted regarding what constitutes a democracy - some could even argue that the Electoral College in the USA means it isn't a true democracy!

Others are what legitimacy it would have in relation to countries that aren't members. Why should those countries care or co-operate with the organisation? Likely it would end up with UD trying to impose its will by force, which is a backwards step.

Furthermore, just because a country is a democracy doesn't mean it is automatically superior to every respect and entitled to adopt the high ground. Many democratic countries around the world have engaged in human rights abuses, started wars and interfered with other sovereign countries to install leaders who push their interests over that of the citizens. There is the danger that said countries in the UD would end up turning a blind eye to each other abuses because they, by definition, "wouldn't do that sort of thing".

[brbsix]

One of the more positive aspects of hereditary monarchies is that their rulers are invested in the long-term success of their kingdoms. Democratically elected rulers have no such incentive. Instead, they promise favors to donors and their electorate, start never-end wars (wars on drugs, wars on poverty, wars on hunger, wars on literacy) for which the costs are socialized and the profits privatized (particularly by companies in which they have interest). Democratically elected politicians remind me of people who strip the appliances and wiring out of their homes as they are being evicted.

[colejohnson66]

> One of which you highlighted regarding what constitutes a democracy - some could even argue that the Electoral College in the USA means it isn't a true democracy!

Well, it is a republic, not a democracy anyways.