The document analyzes why three systems of governance - democracy, Marxism, and aristocracy - would not be suitable for the town of Springfield. Democracy would not work because citizens are unable to elect good leaders and a majority could disadvantage minorities. Marxism would fail because citizens are too materialistic to work without incentives and could become idle. Aristocracy also would not work because citizens' minds have been corrupted and there are no suitable moral leaders, and decisions could conflict with citizens' material desires.

1. Part 4 done by Qian Dong Heng (18) of 4L<br />The three systems of governance which we will compare are:<br />Democracy<br />Marxism<br />Aristocracy<br />Why is democracy not suitable?<br />Reason 1: A democratic town elects its leaders. However, we have seen that Springfield’s citizens are not able to decide what is good for them. An example is when the citizens of Springfield elected Homer as the Sanitation Comissioner, which resulted in town money being wasted. Therefore, they are unable to elect good or even suitable leaders to lead them to prosperity. <br />Reason 2: A democracy suffers from the problem of the tyranny of the majority. That is to say, major decisions in the town are to be determined by a majority vote, and even if minorities are disadvantaged about the vote, they are unable to do anything about it. In Springfield, certain groups of people such as ‘The Men Haters’ are alienated by the people of the town. When bills disadvantaging these groups and benefiting the rest of the townsfolk are put up for a vote, it will be passed due to the vote in agreement by the majority, resulting in even more hatred between the townsfolk and these alienated people, hence resulting in a fragmented society.<br />Why is Marxism not suitable?<br />Reason 1: Marxism subscribes to the ideology that workers do not need materialistic incentives to work. This will not work in Springfield, given the fact that the citizens are so materialistically-motivated. When the town ran amok, citizens began to loot every store and shop for things they fancy, showing how much they prioritize material wealth over anything else.<br />Reason 2: Marxism encourages workers to be idle, if they are not provided with material incentives. This is not ideal in the situation of Springfield as the neigbouring town of Shelbyville is always seeking to destroy Springfield. If Springfield subscribes to Marxism, its workers will eventually become idle, especially since they are denied materialistic wealth under a Marxist society. As such, Springfield would be unable to keep up with the economic competition from other towns such as Shelbyville, resulting in Shelbyville eventually destroying them economically.<br />Why is Aristocracy not suitable?<br />Reason 1: In Aristocracy, the leaders of the state are expected to be moral and intelligent, and must give up both wealth and family. However, the minds of the citizens have been tainted with immoral and evil thoughts due to Krusty and Mr Burns’ evil influence. Most of the citizens are also extremely materialistic, looting shops in the chaos. The only ones who seem to intelligent and not materialistic are the Men Haters. However, the Men Haters harbor deep-rooted hatred for men and as such are not moral leaders. The townsfolk will also not accept it if people they abhor become absolute rulers of the town. This leaves few, if not, no one suitable to form the group of leaders in an aristocracy according to Plato’s criteria for a leader.<br />Reason 2: In Aristocracy, rulers are expected to make wise decisions, and these decisions might not be in the favour of the lower classes. This becomes especially problematic in Springfield, as there are many important problems waiting to be solved (one of which being cleaning up Lake Springfield), possibly using great amounts of money. However, the citizens are materialistic. A potential conflict can occur between the laborers and the leaders as their monetary needs are not satisfied.<br />