I've read as many strategy threads and posts as I can get my hands on and I can't help but feel that many people just haven't taken everything into consideration when they give advice. This includes me, I'm not claiming to be an expert. (Spiritualist is always best! No, Materialist is clearly best. Armies are useless. Repugnant is harmless and charismatic useless because clearly nobody needs an early defensive pact. Etc.)

Military Republic, for example: I've read claims that armies are mostly useless and that "wars are decided in space", but I've found that taking over planets contributes more to the war goal than space warfare does. This requires large armies. Preferably several of them, so that you can siege all or most of the war goal simultaneously and end things that much sooner. The longer the war drags on the more of a burden it is and the more risk there is. The sooner you finish the war the sooner you can move on to better things. A different way, if you like. All of these armies will require upkeep, and not just when you're using them. A 20% discount isn't inconsequential: not necessarily moreso than many other government bonuses. Don't forget that armies put down rebellions, and keeping large armies on troublesome worlds might help prevent a civil war. The army damage bonus isn't much, but it definitely helps. A 15% discount on military stations is also better than you might think: in my current game my military stations are about 700 minerals, and a 15% discount pays for another mining station (plus change). Well placed military stations force enemies to attack in large numbers (rather than just spread out their corvettes), slowing down their attack and helping with turn advantage. I use them often, personally, and I like both the cost and damage bonuses.

I'm not necessarily saying it's the best government in the game, just that it's not terrible. I'd go so far as to say that most trait and government bonuses are comparably "useless". Many of them just don't have a dramatic effect on your empire. How much influence will Indirect Democracy actually save you over the course of the first 200 years or so? (Probably not as much as you might think). Science Directorate's +1 Research Alternative is useless if you consistently draw useful research choices without it. Moral Democracy's larger leader pool is the same: useless if you consistently draw useful leaders without it. Moral Democracy's bonus to core systems is also not significant if you don't mind using sectors.

One thing I'd love to see clarified is some good numbers on happiness, adaptability, and ethics divergence. I can't judge Direct Democracy's happiness bonus or Divine Mandate's ethics divergence bonus if I don't know exactly to what that applies, when, and under what circumstances.