you need to elect a world leader ....?
457740
Candidate B. For him to be kicked out of office twice means that he must have been voted in twice, so for him to be voted in twice he must be doing something right. Though he doesnt make the best personal decisions I'd go with him.\n :)
827205
truth be known, it doesn't matter who is president. world direction was set long ago. the political process/parties are here to keep us entertained and confused while the one would government agenda ever so patiently moves on.
1148677
Politics on a world scale....
774743
Elect people who can't be corrupted. That is the correct answer\nto your question. \n\nWhether it could happen or not is another story all together.\n\nThank you very much, while you're up.
109704
To control the world thru "democracy"
598321
I think World leader should lead troops into battle. If not at least go to the warzone ONCE and go out of your fortress alittle bit to what you created (In Bush's case) The Mess
112457
Some leaders don't care about the opinions of their own people or the worlds. Those people would be more inclined to use said bombs then others. Not being elected don't help either. Of course I am not talking about the U.S. That don't count.
1059763
I don't think it is advisable nor feasible that one leader over the entire world would be a good idea. While perhaps someone to regulate the sovereign countries may seem smart in all essence you have to remember the human factor. Once you give someone that much power it becomes harder and harder to regulate them and keep corruption out of the top ranking offices. Capitalism started out helping America, but has quickly turned fascist, because the human factor was left out of the equation. A single person in charge of the world I fear would be inviting trouble. While I wouldn't even recommend a committee to be in charge of the entire world it makes more sense than one person.
374310
The US are regularly doing this. The elect a President who is a right numbskull and exepct the rest of the world to believe that he is the person they really think can rule the US and the rest of the world. Now that is really taking the urine (they even had a Senator called Goldwater!!!!)
49174
President of what country? (please be specific... we dont want to assume) lol.
921625
Get elected by the members of your party.
269069
The EU already has a presidency, and it rotates between heads of state. I don't know why religious people freak out about this - this has nothing whatsoever to do with the mostly-written-for-its-own-era Book of Revelations...
362059
it always amazes me that out of over 250 million plus people in the US, they could only come up with Bush.  Someone gets elected leader of a party and you are stuck.  No decent choices to be made.  We have the same problem here in Canada.
1080139
Being that the US is the premiere world power, it is incumbent that the US is the police state, so to speak, for the rest of the world.  Changing presidents will not change that.
1023276
Certainly, the world should unite! Now, I don't mean a monolithic, authoritarian, "1984" nightmare dictatorship, but an assembly of nation-states under a minimalist, one-man one-vote global government. In fact, I've got an idea of how this government should be set up, with some rather specific points. Like our great system, it'll have three separate branches, with checks and balances on each. The legislative, or the Global Assembly, as I like to call it, will be unicameral, with four different types of officers. The Congressmen will be based on population, and divided amongst the nations of the world. There will also be a Parliamentary Member, with one officer serving every nation. Think of it as a Senator. There will also be an Ambassador, named by the Government of each member nation. Finally, there will be a Councilor, elected by the intelligentsia of each nation. All of this will be headed by a Prime Minister, popularly elected by all the people of Earth. What the global assembly will do is mediate the disputes between the nations, and it will also attempt projects that the nations alone couldn't achieve. The executive branch, the Premier, will be elected on a local level. Every 10,000 people will come together, vote for the Premier, and the winner of the greatest number of these will take office. The point of the executive will be to focus on the "higher things" in life: Science, the Arts, Medicine, Human Rights, all that. The Judicial will mediate the whole thing, keeping power balanced between Executive and Legislative, between Global and National.\n\n...Sorry to go on like that, but it's an idea I've held for a while.
263536
I don't live in a country that has a pariamentary system of government, but my understanding is that you can't select a prime minister - you vote for a party (or a slate of candidates from a party) and the party picks the prime minister.
286660
It is like when one has to work in a group, in the real world. Often, no one elects a leader of the group, but an individual will still take charge so that the group will run smoothly.\n\nHistory has shown that there will always be a world leader, it just happens that the USA has stepped in to fill the gap for now, just as France, England, Rome, and others have before it. This will eventually change, for better or worse. So, I suppose the simplest answer to your question is "Nature."