FAQ
Here is a list of FAQ with brief responses. I will add links to longer responses as they come available.
Q1. Don’t we already see alternation in power in the status quo?
A1. Yes we do, but not within the time-scale that matters to most people — i.e. not in the immediate future. Most of us are too short-sighted/impatient/myopic to really care that there will be turn-over four or eight or twelve years down the road.
Q2. Why would people bother to vote if the stakes are so low? Wouldn’t participation rates go down? Is that a good thing?
A2. In my opinion, the key thing is the universal RIGHT to participate, not universal participation or high participation. High participation isn’t necessarily a good thing. It is often a symptom of intense conflict and mutual distrust. The turn-taking institution would dramatically lower the stakes of electoral conflict, and lower voluntary participation would be a natural by-product of that…
Q3. Why would parties bother competing if the stakes are so low?
A3. The parties would still compete to be big enough to take a turn, and to be big enough to win it all, they just wouldn’t have such intense pressure to compete over small but pivotal slivers of the electorate. Large changes in opinion would still have large consequences, but small changes would only have small consequences.
Q4. Are you rejecting democracy?
A4. No, not at all, if by democracy you mean “rule by the people.” The existing cookbook includes things like winner-take-all electoral rules, proportional representation rules, the separation of powers, federalism, and so forth. I want to add some new recipes that would make democracy work better.
