Ok, so the option B is to take the leadership and allow another to play their political card. What are the rules about allowing the person with the assembly card to look at the political cards of other players, with their permission, before making the choice of who to pick. My biggest problem is by even giving the option of allowing the holder of the assembly card the option pretty much removes the 'penalty' of taking the leadership token. He can still ask to see a good card that will benefit him and the owner of the card, then pick that person to play the card. I guess it would be easier to punish allied players in larger games, but in a 3-4 player game, the 2 players who are forming alliances can easily beat or match the other player/s. I thought the option B was to give leadership to the owner but take away political power as a penalty of sorts.

Basicly should there be a rule that makes option B a random choice to whom gets to play a political card, should it be a silent choice made by the card holder, or was it the creators plan to make the option B play the way it does now?

You can always ask if another player has a good card to play. also there is no rule that you have to keep your cards secret other than the Secret Objective card. You can show the Assembly person your PC if you want to. Although if you have more than one you are under no obligatio nto play the one you showed other than bringing their ire against you if you suddenly switched on them.

In the games I've played, no player has ever agreed to let the Assembly holder see ALL his cards. He may show him a specific card he would like to see played, but even that doesn't always happen. More often, I've just seen the person say "I have a good PC that will benefit both of us".

There's no rule that says you COULDN'T do that, but it would be detrimental to show your whole hand of PCs to another player - having a surprise agenda sometime is very handy.

The crux of this issue is part of what makes TI so much fun to me - the political game. Yes, you can ask to see other players' PCs and choose a player based on what they have or promise to play. But you're still giving up some power because other players are not required to show you cards, nor are they required to play the PC they promise they will (as others have mentioned.) The player you trust could backstab you if you aren't careful. If you refuse to pick a player who doesn't show you their cards, then you potentially corner yourself into picking the one player who is willing to show you his (useless) cards because everyone who has worthwhile PCs isn't willing to bend over for you. Or worse, everyone could refuse to show you their cards and then you either have to go with option A (which you might not want) or break your own little rule, which undermines your authority moving forward.

It's all politics, and it's all valid. You can try to manipulate the rules in your favour, but everyone else will be doing the same, so it all comes out in the wash.