You specifically used the word "ratify" which could be very important. The other commenters are assuming you mean voting on individual policy issues. A more g

You specifically used the word "ratify" which could be very important. The other commenters are assuming you mean voting on individual policy issues. A more generic weekly vote of confidence or no confidence in the government in general is somewhat more practical, although only somewhat. The problem with a weekly vote of confidence is you're just going to motivate massive chronological engineering such as doing everything unpopular the same week and taking the lumps and hoping no one notices, or playing mixing games that have nothing to do with good governance to ram something unpopular thru the same week something happy happens (or possibly refusing to do something popular until a stockpile of equal and opposite unhappiness accumulates). Its not bad that both good and bad things happen simultaneously, its bad that they have to be stockpiled and delayed until they match up for weekly election reasons. I can only imagine how awful this would work for situation where the government is sort of expected to lie for awhile, longer than a week anyway. Foreign diplomacy, military action, negotiations of all kinds, sometimes faking people out for more than a week is necessary to achieve victory in the longer term (like on a scale of months years decades centuries) Another problem with weekly confidence votes is what happens if the government gets tossed out three times in a month, as could happen if the electorate are generally pissed off. You can't really form a government and operate and judge its operation in a mere week. Now maybe an annual confidence vote is achievable. Maybe. Or maybe one weekly no confidence vote means little more than internal "WTF are we doing" conversations, but more than 7 no confidence in a 13 week quarter means they all resign, something like that.