What are the two main forms of government define each in your own words. provide at least two advantages and disadvantages to having each form of government. provide examples of at least two country?

Answer 1

what are the two main forms of government?

This isn't a good explanation.

(These statements, were posted by original answerer, corrected for grammatical errors.)

In my humble opinion, there are not, ONLY, two types of government.

Unless you are attempting to simplify government types to Elected and Unelected.
Any type of government cannot be broken down further.
Please note, these definitions are simplistic in nature, as a truly quantitative definition would fill several volumes due to derivations of types.

ELECTED:Voted into position by various means. I.E.:popular election, election by quorum, etc.
Examples(types):Democratic, Republic, Confederacy.
ADVANTAGES:
1. Power ultimately rests with the governed. That is, the people can vote a bad leader out, and a good leader in.
2. Leaders power is, generally, restricted to enumerated powers. The people give their leaders certain powers. I.E. make treaties, go to war, establish laws to protect the populace.
DISADVANTAGES:
1. Government break down. That is, where the government begins to take more power away from the governed, and reapportion this power to itself.
2. Uninformed capable of voting. That is, in some types of electoral systems any citizen can vote, whether they understand what they are voting about or not.
COUNTRIES: USA(representative republic), England(constitutional monarchy)

UNELECTED:Taking of leadership by various means. I.E. progression of lineage, force of arms, etc.
Examples(types):Dictatorship, Monarchy, Theocracy.
ADVANTAGES:
1. Leader is there for life(generally). You always know how the leader will respond to situations.
2. No personal responsibility. The governed do as the are told, not as they are want to do.
DISADVANTAGES:
(simple answer: see advantages)
1. People may not be represented. That is, the king may eat well while the people starve.

2. Leader may not be fit to lead. That is, he's psychologically or physically incapable of leading.

COUNTRIES:Cuba(Dictatorship), North Korea(Dictatorship).

In closing, these are the most basic definitions of government, either people are elected to lead or they take leadership. The truth of the matter is that in any type of government there is a combination of both.

For instance, in our representative republic, we vote on our leaders to represent our interests as sovereign individuals and our states. They are elected, they then appoint persons to carry our their orders. These appointed are the unelected leaders. They may execute powers not directly enumerated by the citizenry, and in some cases may be appointed for life.

A good example is the Attorney General. Although it is not widely known, the A.G. serves at the whim of the president, if they do a good job in one administration they may be relieved of duties in the next for political reasons. Technically, the position is for life.

As to the other side...

Dictatorships, Absolute monarchies, and Theocracies may have leaders for life, but whether or not they realize it, some of their subordinates are elected.

The reason I draw this conclusion is two-fold.

First, the leader has advisers, these persons suggest appointments, if more than one adviser suggest the same person they have voted in consensus. Intentionally or not is irrelevant.

Second, if a person becomes popular with the people he may be appointed a position of power. This is the people voting without casting a ballot.

And with that I shall close with this.
ALWAYS REMEMBER
Don't believe anything you read on this web page, or, for that matter, elsewhere, unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true, or unless you have taken the time to research the matter to prove its accuracy to your satisfaction. This is known as "doing your homework."