"Together or Apart"? On Joint versus Separate Electoral Accountability.

Democratic constitutions assign competing policy-making responsibilities across multiple elected agents. One agent initiates policies (the proposer) and the other scrutinizes and either passes or rejects them (the veto player). A fundamental distinction lies in whether both offices are subject to direct elections ("separate appointments"), or whether voters instead are forced to make a single decision that determines the electoral fate of both agents ("joint appointments"). Why should voters benefit from a relatively coarse electoral instrument? A career-concerned veto player builds reputation through rejection of the proposer's policies. A system that commits voters to bind the electoral fate of both agents reduces the veto player's incentives to engage in spurious obstruction of the proposer's initiatives. This can improve voters' retrospective assessment of politicians, and their ability to select competent politicians through elections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]