Well, your way means there's a succession unpredictably every ~20 years instead of predictably every 4.
Whether that's a point for or against depends on whether you think policy thrashing every 4 years is a good idea.
Well, your way means there's a succession unpredictably every ~20 years instead of predictably every 4.
Whether that's a point for or against depends on whether you think policy thrashing every 4 years is a good idea.
The generational succession is VASTLY more predictable than a random one, considering the successor comes from the same house and has literally spent his entire life being groomed and prepared to rule.
We, humanity, have literally ALREADY TRIED THIS.
This isn't some kind of super hypothetical what-if scenario. We have historical records.
It went poorly.
We tried the random thing?
> The generational succession is VASTLY more predictable than a random one
Is it? Plenty of wars have been fought over succession.
Imagine a system whereby you could pole everyone and get a dud leader removed, rather than keep them until they die.
There have been a fair few elections with orderly transitions between governments.
What counterexamples do we have of the random method, to compare? I can’t think of when it’s been tried by a consenting people