We have relied on a one person one job model for some time in which one person holds a job like Supreme Court Justice or Governor. We could use other models. Someone could be like a utility player filling in for the Justice or Governor or office holder. We could have a new Supreme Court Justice each month or each year so that more people could hold the Supreme Court Justice position and those people could rotate in and out of the positions. Advantages are 1. rest for job holders, 2. more people hold jobs, 3, more time off for job holders, 4, more income for more persons, 5. more variety for office holders. Disadvantages are pension problems in which too many people would be eligible for pensions. For example 1 Justice each month would create 12 new pensioners a year at cost to the US. Rotating, sharing or multiple office holders splitting salaries might decrease election costs; there are some situations in which the two or 20 candidates might agree that they do not really disagree on much and the election is a waste of time and money. Does democracy really erode when we do not vote and many candidates hold office? Does democracy increase when many people hold offices?
- Supreme Court,
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/james_struck/10/