Why do all democracies have discrete elections rather than continuous voting?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

What would happen if, rather than having one day every N years where I voted, I could vote whenever I liked, and that vote would continue to count unless/until I voted again.

Obviously, you'd need a system whereby a government could remain in power for a certain period of time - perhaps two months - after losing a majority, to prevent periods of balance when power changed hands every few minutes - but on the other hand it would improve accountability and possibly make it harder to win elections by focussed spending campaigns.

[FBaggins]

1. I don't know why "all" democracies do it... but it's pretty clear why we do it here.

"We" (meaning the founding fathers and the current scheme) have no interest in a direct democracy. The nature of a republic is designed to avoid mob control

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. I think that's a different, unconnected issue.

I don't see any connection between representative vs direct democracy and discrete vs continuous voting.

[FBaggins]

6. I don't see how they can be unconnected.

The danger is the same, just one small step removed. If you get 99% of the decisions right but tick off the mob on one issue, you're gone (and replaced by the guys who voted wrong on the other 99%) until a different mob gets mad at them. Given the fact that a sizable proportion of the electorate doesn't change sides from election to election, the muddled middle ends up in eclectic control.

Your underlying motivation here seems clear. You're unhappy with the results of the recent election and can't stand the notion of having to wait two years to fix it when the majority (presumably) wakes up and realized the boneheaded mistake they just made.

[xocet]

2. Interesting Idea...

Have you ever thought of running a simulation of something like that? Maybe the continuous election could be overlaid on something like Conway's Game of Life, but, instead of having life or death be the consequences of the environmental conditions, casting a vote or remaining quiescent could be the consequences.

At any rate, you have brought up an interesting idea.

[alc]

3. continuous voting means continuous campaigning

If you think the campaign season is bad now, just imagine
* 1 week of congress and voting
* 3 weeks of collecting donations
* 4 weeks of campaigning

The vote in the first week will determine the a money they collect in the next 3 weeks which will determine how well they can explain away their vote in the first week. And their opponents can skip a few elections to build up their campaign funds then campaign against someone who just spent 3 weeks collecting funds. As long as the other side can put up someone to cause the incumbent spend their funds each time it won't take long before they are out (and doners who are limited to $x for candidate Y will be willing and allowed to spend an additional $x on candidate A,B,C who wont win just to get drain the incumbent's funds)

[geek tragedy]

5. Logistically impossible.

Elections are events by definition. They aren't the dial-meters that people use while watching debates.

[LiberalFighter]

7. Would you want to be in charge of that type of election?

There would be a new Secretary of State in each state every few months because of the extreme stress.

[Mass]

8. Welcome to Sarah Palin president!! (or any demagogue from the left or right!!

The movement to unseat a president (or a rep) would start immediately after an election, and it would be the best way to insure that nothing gets done. Therefore, only those who promise what people want to hear would be elected.

Our system already lacks courageous pols who would tell things as they are. I somehow doubt such a system would make things any better.

[jdp349]

9. Many parliamentary democracies do not always have discrete elections

In some instances if the opposition successfully castes a vote of no confidence and the government disbands, general elections can be called to elect a new parliament.

I think it is pretty obvious however why no democracies that I'm aware of constitutionally give this power to the people. Doing so significantly compromises the governments ability to govern effectively because they would be constantly bound by whimsical and often ridiculous momentary public sentiment. While a democratic government should of course be determined by the will of the people it must be sheltered somewhat in order to pursue necessary but perhaps unpopular reforms. Without writing a whole thesis paper giving this power to the people would be an operational nightmare significantly compromising the effectiveness of the government. It would be a dangerous experiment in mob rule.

[stevenleser]

10. Initially this sounds good, then when you visualize how it would work, it's awful

Every single issue would be demagogued to death. Constant campaigning, constant jockeying for cameras and soundbites (even worse than now, exponentially so). Think the California recall but worse.

Zero foreign relations cred. No relationships could be built with any other countries because our leaders would always be changing.

That is just for starters.

[frazzled]

11. Sort of like American Idol?

Or Survivor? Vote the current government off the island whenever your nose gets a bit out of joint?

Change the government every two months? A recipe for disaster.

When you know your senator will serve for six years, you're going to take your vote a whole lot more seriously than if you know you can ring the gong whenever you like. Some people would vote every day.

Sorry, but I don't think your idea would be good for the country. (PS: I voted against being able to recall a governor here, too, back in November. I don't believe in it. If a governor (or senator or president) has done something illegal or unconstitutional, then there are mechanisms in place for the government to expel him or her. Public opinion is too whimsical and volatile.)

[slackmaster]

12. Continuous voting could eliminate the need for representatives

I think direct Democratic voting on every issue could prove disastrous.

[harun]

13. I'm with you. Minorities would be slaughtered and the tyranny of the

majority would have no curbs.