A constitutional republic is actually a very sensible form of government...in the beginning. the idea that law rules rather than the opinion of the people is a fair means of maintaining order. however it proves faulty in the sense that law must be determined and continuously updated in order to maintain...well, order. Add in the fact that many forms of republics are scarcely in keeping with their societies true to the definition of their governing ideal. The US strayed quite far off course from it's foundation for example. But would it be fair to say that the US is a democracy, when you're becoming more and more empirical. I mean, truthfully how much sway do the people have in the navigation of their government. a handful of lobbyists of grandiose corporations seem to have far greater influence of the US then it's people do. And your government can decide what your opinions are for you after you've voted them in. Canada is much the same way, though I think America takes it to an extreme in comparison. It's far more autocratic than I think most people would say.
however, to the point of robocracy (the democratic form that is). If democracy is as faulted as made claim, then would our mechanical friends make it any more stable? Granted they wouldn't have the emotional capacity to argue back if they were in the 49th percentile.
I think that if a republic could stand on it's own two feet and survive negative influence, it would make for the most ideal governance of the people (robots can join too, but they have to play fair. no saws or tippy wedges). Anyone disagree? I was thinking there might be some stout and steadfast kira fans calling for a mighty dictator, but alas I'm to quick to post.
Analog's underwear are digital. right now they're set to inverse 1 (I think that means they're on my head).