I have an idea

@DDonde So why does your constitution require you to elect a monarch every four years? If the idea of a single person with so much power was antithetical why did your founding fathers not make sure that it didn't happen?

@ninalanyon It's not a monarch, it's a president. There's a difference. Monarchs are heads of royal families, in which the position is inherited. Presidents are elected and guaranteed to have a regular cycle of succession.

@DDonde [quote]Monarchs are heads of royal families, in which the position is inherited[/quote]
It is often done that way but it is not universally so. The emperor of the Holy Roman Empire was elected. It often was the first born son of the previous emperor but it was not a foregone conclusion and such is not a requirement for a monarch. The word simply means that one person is in charge. One of the defining features of a monarch at the time that the US was founded was that they had considerable power, similar to that of an American, Russian, or Chinese president,
[quote] Presidents are elected and guaranteed to have a regular cycle of succession.[/quote]
Except for those, who having been elected, refuse to step down.

@ninalanyon [quote]The word simply means that one person is in charge.[/quote]
Not really. I still stand by my definition of it. Queen Elizabeth, after all, was a monarch, but not really in charge.
[quote]Except for those, who having been elected, refuse to step down.[/quote]
Which thankfully has not yet happened with us yet.

@DDonde Dear old QEII was a [i]constitutional monarch[/i], a quite different animal not at all like her namesake QEI who really was in charge. The general rule being that QEII had lots of power so long as she was careful not to use it. In that sense there are several monarchies in Europe: Spain, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, UK. But in none of them do the heads of state wield any power.