Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
The most natural order of things exists in the absence of a proposed law. The lawmaker is the one attempting to disturb this order. In so doing, the lawmaker must prove the value and justness of additional law. I might suggest using the standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."I have wondered about this before, and thought about what could perhaps be done to make things more like this. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a great idea, but as always, the devil and details go hand-in-hand.My most recent pair of ideas on this are as follows (and yes, I am soliciting opinions as well):A) Require a larger-than-simple-majority majority of votes in order to implement a new law. I'm thinking something like it takes at least 3/5 + 1 of the votes to implement a law, instead of 1/2 + 1.On the mirror side, there is the ability to remove laws. I could see either requiring a larger majority to remove the law, or just a simple majority. The first would tend to make things change slower both ways, while the second would tend to ensure that as few laws stay on the books as possible. At least, that's how I see things.B) Require a majority of all possible votes in order to implement a law. This could be in combination with A), or separately. What it would mean, of course, is altering the idea of quorems. To take the US Senate as an example, there are 100 (or 101) possible votes, so any new law would need a minimum of 51 yes votes to be implemented -- even if there were only 51 people present at the voting. I admit that I might be describing what is already the case here, but it was my impression that the senate could pass a bill into law if, say, 46 of the 90 present senators voted yes.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |