World elections since 1900 every 4 years: Who would you vote for to be international president?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Assuming you could only write-in, and no-one declared. Every world citizen is eligible, who wins serves 4 years as international president.

Don't underestimate this, you'll likely forget people, be very biased towards a certain country (which is okay), and be sad you can't include some people, or genuinely be torn between some individuals. Without hindsight, this is almost impossible, so i've done with hindsight, until 2000

1900: William Jennings Bryan
1904: Theodore Roosevelt
1908: Theodore Roosevelt
1912: Eugene V. Debs
1916: Eugene V. Debs
1920: Rosa Luxemburg
1924: Robert M. La Follette
1928: Leon Trotsky
1932: Leon Trotsky
1936: Franklin Delano Roosevelt
1940: Franklin Delano Roosevelt
1944: Julien Lahaut
1948: Julien Lahaut
1952: Henry Wallace
1956: Henry Wallace
1960: John F. Kennedy
1964: Martin Luther King
1968: Robert F. Kennedy
1972: Willy Brandt
1976: Frank Church
1980: Frank Church
1984: Francois Mitterand
1988: Francois Mitterand
1992: Mikhail Gorbachev
1996: Francois Mitterand
2000: Hugo Chavez
2004: Hugo Chavez
2008: Hugo Chavez
2012: José Mujica
2016: Bernie Sanders
2020: Bernie Sanders
2024: AOC or Andrew Yang undecided

Top 3 for 2016:
1. Bernie Sanders
2. Justin Trudeau (without hindsight)
3. José Mujica

Top 5 for 2020:
1. Bernie Sanders
2. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
3. Greta Thunberg
4. Ada Colau
5. Evo Morales

Top 3 for 2024:
1. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
2. Andrew Yang
3. Jacinda Ardern

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Apologism for Chavez and his thugs is not acceptable. This man murdered hundreds, imprisoned hundreds of thousands of opposition politicians and voters, slaughtered journalists and priests, rigged elections, and got in bed with the most corrupt politicians and vilest cartels in Venezuela. Very nasty man. He makes Vladimir Putin look like an angel by comparison.

I voted for Chavez, assuming without hindsight

[LAKISYLVANIA]

It bears mentioning that previous Venezuelan governments were so corrupt (and even more entwined with organized crime) that it is not really credible to use the corruption card against Chavez,

Bothsidesism is not really credible to use.

and it was clear that people were fed up in 1999.

Yeah, and they should have been. But "anything else" doesn't mean better, as we saw in US in 2016.

At least Chavez put oil revenues into welfare programs as opposed to just singularly focusing on looting it and dumping it in bank accounts in the Cayman Islands or somewhere else.

Oil revenues themselves are a form of looting anyway, there was no way for the structure of this economy to realistically work to benefit the most people of Venezuela. The grass isn't always greener.

Would you rather have corruption with a side serving of trampling the poor or corruption with the side serving of helping the poor? Because half a loaf is better than none and corruption is normal. That's just par for course in Latin America...

The results of Chavez's policies have not helped the poor in the long term. The entire country is worse off.

Not really, when you consider that welfare levels skyrocketed for over a dozen years, bankrolled by oil revenues. This was an extraodinary and in fact excessive investment, which should have included more efforts to diversify beyond oil. "In the long term" includes the oil boom and not just the oil bust.
The old establishment in the country would never have gone to these lengths to provide for the poor.

Yeah, because populism doesn't work. The quick fix never does (see: stock buybacks and now COVID). Chavez was more interested in maintaining power than building a better future for Venezuela. He's a Donald Trump when Venezuela needed a Barack Obama.

The old establishment of Venezuela had many Donald Trumps who loved gimmicks and short-term fixes in order to keep the wool over people's eyes.
Only Chavez had a long-term plan to actually make the country more successful, unfortunately it relied on oil prices being high enough in perpituity to keep it funded.

You're correct and I agree with you, and I like you go against the current. Chavez is BY NO MEANS perfect, and i'm sure in retroperspective there were better people to vote for, but I don't know any 2000's people i would instantly vote for, and right than Venezuela looked like a success state. Like you say it relied too much on oil, and that caused it collapse. Chavez was clearly the lesser of the two evils there. I have no doubts the right would've ed up the economic crisis as well. Venezuela was a ticking time bomb.

We see what happened in Bolivia. Coup d'état, bad race relations and a return to authoritarianism as well. Exactly the same thing we see in Brazil as well. I'm not sure if that's someone we should prefer over Maduro's government currently. Even Maduro with all it's flaws, is someone I prefer over Jair Bolsonaro or the current Bolivian coup d'etat attemptors. That doesn't mean he isn't a terrible guy however.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

If you really think Hugo Chavez was better than Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, Gerhard Schröder, Lula de Silva, or Manmohan Singh, I don’t know what to say.

Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and all the others I don’t really understand, but if you want to be anti-globalization or anti-The Big Five, there are still much better leaders than Chávez to turn to.

I'm aware of that, and with hindsight would vote for someone else, likely Lula de Silva

[LAKISYLVANIA]

1984: Margaret Thatcher
1988: Margaret Thatcher

why the hell would you pick Thatcher?

She's actually more progressive than Reagan in my honest opinion, and quite honestly, the only other alternative that I could think of in 1984 was Mondale, and in 1988 was George H.W Bush. I wasn't impressed with Mondale's campaigning skills, and H.W Bush doesn't appeal to me for the same reasons that I didn't like his son.

Mitterand?