[johngladtj]

>Even at that I'm not sure it really helps. Lawmaking is still fundamentally a "single member" operation: a bill either passes or it doesn't. You still get pushed to be in either the majority or minority coalition.

The solution for that is to not make it a simple binary pass/fail, but to have how it passes and fails affect the outcome.

A simple and consistent way of doing this is by making it so that all laws have a built in expiration date, and how big the majority for passing the bill affects how long the law is in effect from.

A 50% + 1 margin of victory should result in the law becoming void the moment the parliament composition changes.

Perhaps a 60% margin might allow it to go for 10 years, a 70% margin for 15 years, and so on.

Constitutional changes should essentially require unanimity ( and a referendum on top of it) since they are the only permanent laws.

Some laws would be more or less "permanent" since every 30 years or so you'd like get a 99%+ majority for a "theft is illegal" type low, but other more controversial would likely be on the ballots every few years.

[theluketaylor]

> A 50% + 1 margin of victory should result in the law becoming void the moment the parliament composition changes.

I do like the idea of built in timers on laws, but instant revocation seems too extreme. A marginal law expiring at the end of the new term seems more conducive to stability. That gives time to debate, discuss, and pass (or not) a modified version so everyone affected has time to participate and plan for revisions.

> Constitutional changes should essentially require unanimity ( and a referendum on top of it) since they are the only permanent laws.

Here in Canada the bar on constitutional amendments has been set so high it's unlikely we will ever be able to change it for any reason. Too much change isn't healthy, but neither is none.

Not American, but I do think their bar for constitutional amendments has also been set too high and I think it's contributing to polarization. Setting it even higher seems counter-productive. I have similar feelings about the filibuster.

More laws passing would let people live with the consequences, good or bad, of all the stuff being proposed. Voters would be able to vote based on reality rather than the boogey-man each side portrays of what the other side might do with power. There should be a high bar to change a constitution, but it needs to be clearable more often.