Winner-take-all elections for executive offices create high-stakes electoral conflict that distorts policy-making and constitution-making behavior. When the stakes are high, so long as it increases the chances of victory, office-seekers seek to shift perceived benefits toward and burdens away from potentially pivotal participants. This can entail the strategic allocation of spoils, the strategic selection of public policies that mobilize one's base or divide the opposition, the strategic shifting of benefits into the present and costs into the future, and the strategic deception of the uninformed. This paper proposes a ''turn-taking institution,'' an electoral system in which the whole term is only awarded to a sufficiently inclusive supermajority coalition; if no coalition qualifies, the plurality winner and the runnerup take alternating one-year turns for the length of the term. This institution lowers the stakes of electoral conflict by roughly an order of magnitude, and fosters the formation, enforcement and adaptation of mutually productive policy-making and constitution-making behaviors. Critically, these results hold up even when voters and policy-makers are impatient, and when only short-run commitments are possible.