Posting here because, while I find your statement worth responding to, I already said I was going to leave the thread & I don't really want to be subjected to bizarre antigay or antifeminist rants that will surely only serve to piss me off.
All I'm getting from the above arguments is that each system has its flaws; we could argue all day about why each system is better, but in the end, it all seems to come down to personal preference and bias.
The problem is, when you make an empirical claim, it ceases to be a matter of personal preference. If a government system works better, there will be evidence. You can make a prediction, such as that the system will be present in the most prosperous nations. If the evidence supports your prediction, accepting it is not "bias," that's how investigation is supposed to work.
What IS bias is deciding on a conclusion a priori, making predictions, & then only keeping the ones that support your preconceived notion, dismissing your failed predictions as inconsequential (democracies collapsing proves they don't work, but the waning # of absolute monarchies doesn't), & reverting to vague claims that are impossible to prove or disprove.
It sounds like it's being reasonable to say that there are "pros & cons to both," but so what? That's true of anything. A pro of theft is that someone with less money can get more. A pro of mob justice is that the community can get rid of people they consider threats. This doesn't imply that crime & not crime are equally valid methods, so just pick whichever you feel like.