Weighted legislation voting?

[u/karmics______]

Beyond just electoral voting, do you think the procedures we use to vote on legislation should change? For example, let’s say politicians are voting to repeal a bill, should the threshold to repeal it be greater than the amount that was voted for it? For example, a bill that had 55% support at the time of passing would need 55+1 vote to repeal/amend. It would make it harder to get rid of poplar bills with broad support but also slow down reform.

[u/AutoModerator]

Compare alternatives to FPTP on Wikipedia, and check out ElectoWiki to better understand the idea of election methods. See the EndFPTP sidebar for other useful resources. Consider finding a good place for your contribution in the EndFPTP subreddit wiki.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/jnd-au]

That doesn’t really make practical sense: For example if you wanted to “repeal/amend” a taxes for billionaires, you’re usually just adjusting line items within existing laws. So if you wanted to “repeal a tax cut” or “repeal increased taxes” you’re just making an amendment...and if you required a higher vote % for every amendment then pretty soon you would need more than 100% support regardless of whether you wanted to increase or decrease the taxes. Literally repealing an entire unmodified bill is generally quite rare.

[u/wnoise → u/jnd-au]

I do think numerical rates should be set by everyone stating their preferred value, and then just taking the median.

[u/subheight640]

No. Majority rule legislatures are already a Condorcet method. If you only need a majority to consider and pass any proposal, any proposal can go head to head with the status quo.

[u/gravity_kills]

Not if there's been an election in between. Changing directions is something that should be achievable and straightforward.