It could be—except that at some point you have to move from a ‘better’ system to a ‘worse’ one. At which point, people complain—rightly—that they are getting a worse democracy because of some meta-rule.
Possibly one option, if we’re talking about that kind of radical change, would be for every election to also have a referendum on how the next election would be held—with four or five options each time (say FPTP, STV, AV, AMS, AV+ or something). Each time, the least popular option from last time will be removed from the ballot and replaced with a different system.
(Of course then you get into a meta-meta argument about how to count the referendum votes...)
It could be—except that at some point you have to move from a ‘better’ system to a ‘worse’ one. At which point, people complain—rightly—that they are getting a worse democracy because of some meta-rule. Possibly one option, if we’re talking about that kind of radical change, would be for every election to also have a referendum on how the next election would be held—with four or five options each time (say FPTP, STV, AV, AMS, AV+ or something). Each time, the least popular option from last time will be removed from the ballot and replaced with a different system. (Of course then you get into a meta-meta argument about how to count the referendum votes...)
It’s meta-arguments all the way down, yes :-)