Normally, I prefer monarchy for my challenges. In my personal opinion, demochrocy seems unfair, while monarchy shows more involvement.

Demochrocy is unfair because the people who post earleir are more likely to win, as they have more time, and they basically get a head-start. Many would say the early bird gets the worm, but if the bird is being chased by a cat, can it get to the worm earlier? No. This may be a fact of life and unchangable for the real world, but it is changable for this particular area. Another thing, if someone currently has less followers or has just started, their work is less likely to be noticed or read at all, considering they have less people who have already built up good expectations for them. Thirdly, this system is not even fully demochrocy. We click on a post and like it if we like it, not go to a challenge and read all the posts before liking just one of them! The so called demochrocy option does not even fully fulfill it's name. All in all, this option is unfair in more than one way.

Many people tend to hate monarchy, and there are things wrong with this option, but that does not make it completely unusable. One of the first thing many would say, is that Monarchy makes it so that you can only win if you appeal to a certain type of reader. However, that is only when a challenge is chosen with biast. If an author chooses the winner based on grammer, spelling, wording, form, ideas and/or reasoning rather than their favourite, the problem shall be solved! Also, Monarchy makes the creator of the challenge more involved. They get to see the influence they have made, the oppinions they have gathered, and the work they have inspired. They get to finish what they've started rather than just let someone else and a bit of luck do it for them. In conclusion, monarchy gives us a chance to go back to the basics of the writing and finish what we started, improving and honing our own skills.

Be sure to keep this in mind the next time you make a challenge!

The people are going to voice out and participate regardless. It's not like there's never a way to influence power. Monarchy is better for actually vetting pieces against a set criteria since there's only one consistent view judging every piece. It's useful for some focused pieces, but not for people.

Honestly, democracy is my go-to for making challenges because I promise I will forget to choose a winner most of the time. While that makes it harder for smaller accounts and new accounts to 'win' and gain traction, it's more convenient.

Realistically though, between the two extremes, democracy is susceptible to the dangers of stupid people in large groups much more than the dangers of tyranny. Not that either are good ways to organize, but a central power is more manageable than having the power sit with an everchanging majority.

Plus, it's easier to assassinate one bad monarch than an entire cult.

I mean, In monarchy challenges, participation is voluntary. In the real world, ah....