Was Rome better off as a republic or an empire?

I think that Rome was better off as a republic. Republics focus more on the people, whereas the Roman empire had one leader at a time. Although in the republic every person was not allowed to vote, it was a better representation of the people than just one person making all the calls. The Roman Republic allowed all white men that were Roman citizens to vote. It represented many of the people, and seemed like an efficient way to get things done. I personally think that supporting and representing as many people as possible is very important. However, there were apparently some problems with this, because it did turn into the Roman empire. One ruler at a time took over Rome, like Julius Caesar. This way of life varied from ruler to ruler. One ruler could be power hungry and only try to defeat other civilizations, or he could be very concerned for the people. It was a very unstable government, so Rome would have been better off remaining a republic. I think that if they had just stayed with the idea of a republic, and tweaked it a bit, they could have an amazing government. Their basic ideas is what we have shaped our government off of today.

Sources:
"The Roman Empire." Latin Language. Web. 09 Mar. 2010. .

"Rome: The Republic." Washington State University - Pullman, Washington. Web. 09 Mar. 2010. .

Photographs from:
Photograph. Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia, 01 Feb. 2005. Web. 8 Mar. 2010. .

Photograph. Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia, 10 Nov. 2006. Web. 8 Mar. 2010. .