Volatility should be handled with caution. It doesn’t help individual candidates or people who are counting on them, but it does make it easier for the over-all window of political discouse to shift, since more randomness allows more radical candidates to get in as often. And certainly we should want an appropriate shift.
But if you think about how this works out, it leaves the shift entirely determined by the ones who select candidates in the first place. Not voting or treating all candidates as equivalent gives them even less worry about keeping things palatable to the general electorate, so really, such volatility is a benefit to them. Make sure they’re on your side before you push for it.
As IronEdithKidd says, America already has low voter turnout, and it’s not hard to tell who is pushing for it and who gains from it. It’s gone with a slide far toward the interests of wealthy campaign donors, who with little interested electorate are all but the only ones that determine whether someone might be elected.
