The problem with popular petition for laws --- + solution:

[CCS]

With popular petition, you can go collect signatures and then put a law on the ballot. If it passes by 51%, it becomes law, no matter how much the 49% hate that law. Granted, the 49% could spend lots of money advertizing against the law, though in some states they can't do that with candidates.

Imagine a left to right spectrum of voters: LLLLLMMMMMRRRRR
51% is needed to pass a law. Would it be best if the 51% were LLLLLMMM, LLMMMMMR, or MMMRRRRR? The one that is LLMMMMMR is moderate and less likely to have groups on either side that would be extremely against the law.

In most states, you could pass LLLLLMMM or MMMRRRRR with 51% and get the law passed. That happened when the Arizona legislature put Propecia 102 on the ballot, and 53% of the populus voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Many activists wish that individuals could propose amendments to the United States Constitution. The founding fathers require 2/3 of both houses of congress to propose amendments to the constitution for this very reason: 2/3 is guaranteed to include the middle 1/3, and also protects minorities from simple majority rule. Yes, the opposite extreme could come back with a moderate amendment to counter it, but it might not pass in time to prevent the country from splitting up.

In europe, if some extremists propose an amendment to the EU constitution, the legislatures can propose their own version of that amendment, which will run head to head with the popularly proposed one. I want my state to have something similar to that. Problem is the other extreme might instead propose their own extreme and run that against the other extreme, choosing to gamble instead of using a moderate they know would win head to head. But the populus will never give up their ability to propose amendments now that it is out.

My solution:
1. Let the legislature propose laws to run head to head with any law that is popularly passed. That is the only way the legislature can overturn popular laws.
2. Let the opposition collect opposing signatures on their own ballot. You need 10% to propose a law, but for every opposing signature collected, you need an extra signature to pass that law, until you get to 20% the number that voted for governor the last year, in which case it will be put to a vote regardless. But here is the kicker:
Opposing signatures collected: Percent of vote need to pass:
0% 50.1%
1% 52%
2% 54%
3% 56%
4% 58%
5% 60%
6% 62%
7% 64%
8% 65%
9% 66%
10%+ 67%

 

[CCS]

As for laws passed by a legislature:

The governor/president is supposed to be a centrist. As a supposed centrist, the president will veto a law that is known to be further to the left or right than the president knows can pass with the moderates and opposite extremes in the legislature. Unfortunately, in a polarized country, centrists rarely win the presidency.

2/3 of both houses guarantees that the center 1/3 went along with the law. It also serves to protect minorities.

Should 51% be allowed to force 49% into submission? Libertarians would argue that if 2/3 can't agree on a law, there should be no law at all. 51% often does not have the approval of moderates, though it could be a LLMMMMMR example from above. That is why the senate has the Filabuster. If LLMMMMMR is proposed, it is unlikely LLLRRRR will get together and fillabuster the law, though they can if they want. Whereas if MMMRRRRR passes, it is very likely LLLLLMM will filubuster the law.

Why does the senate have the filabuster, and the house does not? The senate represents the states. The who point of states is so 51% of the country can't make 49% submit. If you want a law passed, pass it in your own state. You don't get to vote on how other people live in other states, at least not by 51% rule.

As for slavery, it can be abolished if 2/3 of both houses of congress propose an amendment that outlaws it, and it is ratified by 3/4 of the states. What if the federal government could every state with a 51% rule? Well, it could force other states to have slaves too. It goes both ways. Or more applicable to modern law: congress could outlaw abortion in every state if it were not for the supreme court. Congress could outlaw gay marriage in every state if it were not for the 10th amendment. Gay marriage would be illegal one year and legal the next in 2 year cycles.

So requiring super majorities at the highest level of government, and simple majorities only at the lowest level of government, is a good thing. People often don't agree on stuff. The only thing you should do at the highest level is insure that people are able to vote with their feet, and are living in an area out of their own free consent. Then the federal government should only pass laws to protect people who can't vote with their feet, such as kids and slaves.

 

[CCS]

Now if every law required 2/3 vote, that would promote some vigilantiism on some things. That is why congress can pass laws with a 51% majority, but only if there is no fillabuster. If the president signs it, that typically means the law is close to the center. And if it is in the center, it is unlikely there will be a fillabuster from either side.

I think it would be a good thing if a 2/3 majority were needed for every law in the US senate, just because it is the highest level of government and any laws not passed at the national level because 2/3 can't agree could be passed at the state level instead.

Yeah, but the popular counter-signature that raises the percent of the vote needed to pass a law is something I need to pass in my state, along with the legislature being able to put an alternative against the law.


But it is important that legislatures NOT be able to bipass governor veto by putting a law on the ballot. If they could, then MMMRRRRR could put a law on the ballot, which would be approved by MMMRRRRR in the populus, when M Govermor would have vetoed it.

 

[DoctorHouse]

Save it for your cable show. :whistle:

 

[Cassin]

Save it for your cable show. :whistle:

Podcast ASAP!

 

[CCS]

I bet if I take this to my state legislature, they will put it on the ballot for me.

 

[DoctorHouse]

I think if they saw your podcast they may make you governor or maybe in the future the President. :whistle: Lets move on to a new topic now, tell me how to get six pack abs and still eat pizza and chinese food. :whistle:

 

[CCS]

I think the legislature should not be able to throw out a popular law, but it should be able to run an alternative law against it head to head on the popular ballot. The idea is the most centrist one will win.
But it is important that legislatures NOT be able to bipass governor veto by putting a law on the ballot. If they could, then MMMRRRRR could put a law on the ballot, which would be approved by MMMRRRRR in the populus, when M Govermor would have vetoed it.

 

[DoctorHouse]

I think your podcast should be appropriately named BABBLE. :whistle:

 

[CCS]

I think your podcast should be appropriately named BABBLE. :whistle:

I learned long ago, if I want to get a message to the populus, my first step is to take it to college professors for their approval. 99% of people don't understand what I say and would ignore me unless I get the signatures of many educated people to give me credit. Most people only care what educated people say, even if those educated people are trying to rip them off. Most don't think for themselves, or would need too much time to figure something out that they don't bother evaluating everything they hear unless someone educated says it.