In the Czech Republic it is estimated that about 10% of the governmental expenses are lost as cost of corruption (I think the source is Transparency International, but I can not find it now). This cost is about 100 billion CZK/year. Yet, the country's main parliamentary elections are only once in four years and cost only about 1 billion CZK. If I use mathematics then if Czechs voted against this corruption then we could have 100 parliamentary elections every year and still would cover the election cost from the savings on corruption.
Often after the one four-year cycle the opposition wins and sometimes reverts important long-term political decisions like the way pension/retirement plans work, which is not really good. Such decisions need broad political consensus and in case of shorter election cycles, such consensus would be found faster I think, because the changes would be reverted by the opposition possibly after one year already which would make less damage to the country.
My question is very simple - would the shorter election cycles - let's say one-year cycle - bring cleaner politics with better consensual decisions (even with a possible smaller turnout since some people may not like to vote that often)?
The rationale is to give voters more power to control politics. The politics would need to behave in order to be re-elected. Probably a smaller election turnout would be needed since the politics probably would "just work" so say a 10% turnout would still roughly represent public opinion and more voters would only participate if a greater change would be needed.
PS. I am not able to find the sources for my claims above right now. If someone is interested please leave a comment I will try to do so.