[AnthonyMouse]

> A party in power will seek to nullify issues by putting forward and then defeating sham bills.

Presumably the three strikes would be for the politicians, e.g. if you have voted in favor of three bills that courts have subsequently found unconstitutional, you're barred from holding office.

[JumpCrisscross]

> if you have voted in favor of three bills that courts have subsequently found unconstitutional, you're barred from holding office

Would you look at that, everyone who was passing court reform is now barred from office.

You’re looking for a cheat code to effort in government. It doesn’t exist. Power is ephemeral. The person in power is always more powerful than the person who just had it, almost by definition.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Would you look at that, everyone who was passing court reform is now barred from office.

But then the population sees this, still wants court reform (now more than ever) and votes in new politicians to take it up. The new politicians haven't yet voted on anything and so can't be barred this way and the first bill they take up is court reform.

> You’re looking for a cheat code to effort in government.

I'm looking for checks and balances. Something outside of the whims of populism should cause politicians who repeatedly attempt to violate fundamental rights to suffer consequences.

[JumpCrisscross]

> I'm looking for checks and balances

Try a cooling-off period. Switzerland does it for referendums. Absent a super-majority, a bill needs a certain amount of time between initial and final approval.

[account42]

We are looking for checks and balances for politicians acting against the interests of the populace. Without them a government is always one step away from tyranny.

[lucianbr]

The ultimate check is people voting for better politicians. Without this, no system of checks can do anything significant. No checks in the US will limit Trump and the republicans, if they get voted over and over again. No checks in France or Germany or Italy will limit the extreme right, if they keep getting more and more of parliament. Eventually they would be powerful enough to change the constitution, change judges and so on. No system of checks can stop Putin or Xi or the Taliban.

Checks are useful if people mostly vote right, but occasionally make mistakes. If you double down on the mistakes, you get the situation that it would be undemocratic for some rules made 100 years ago to stand in the way of what the majority of the population wants today.

Plus, who knows what are the "interests of the populace". Who can decide that? If the populace votes one way, you saying "they're voting against their interests so they should be prevented from getting what they want" is functionally equivalent to saying "what I want should be done and what others want should not, even if I am in a minority". I know it does not feel that way to you, but try to see it from the perspective of someone who disagrees with you.

In a democracy, the only possible arbiter of what should happen is the majority. Anything else is the tyranny you decry.