imagine a political economy in which every five to ten years after a government institutes a policy/​set of policies, a decision oracle (everyone in the country) votes on whether they were good or not.
There is already this thing in politics where if you opponent proposes a good policy change, you vote against, because you do not want your opponent to be associated with a good thing. Two weeks later, you propose the same thing, using different words, maybe with some modifications that benefit you.
This mechanism would give even more incentives in the same direction. First, even more motivation to vote against what your opponents suggested, because granting them success would not only make them popular but also increase the power of their voters. Second, if your opponents succeed to pass a law, you have even more motivation to sabotage it using any means available; doing so will reduce the power of their voters.
There is already this thing in politics where if you opponent proposes a good policy change, you vote against, because you do not want your opponent to be associated with a good thing. Two weeks later, you propose the same thing, using different words, maybe with some modifications that benefit you.
This mechanism would give even more incentives in the same direction. First, even more motivation to vote against what your opponents suggested, because granting them success would not only make them popular but also increase the power of their voters. Second, if your opponents succeed to pass a law, you have even more motivation to sabotage it using any means available; doing so will reduce the power of their voters.