Exaggerated opinions

[DEMOREP1]

Currently most jurisdictions in the U.S. have nominating petitions to show
some minimal support before a candidate gets his/her name put on ballots.  The
same principle should apply for legislative proposals to rationally limit the
number of pending proposals.

I note again that voting on multiple proposals is the same as voting on
multiple candidates.
Namely, each candidate does or does not have majority acceptability.
If 2 or more candidates get such majority acceptability, then they should go
head to head using Number Voting (1, 2, etc.) (i.e. the Condorcet method).

In like manner, each legislative proposal (i.e. bill) should only need
majority acceptability.  If there are 2 or more conflicting proposals with
such majority acceptability, then they should go head to head using Number
Voting (1, 2, etc.).

Any exaggerated supermajority requirement (5 to 1, or whatever) for
legislation is by definition having a minority veto. I note the continuous
minority veto in the U.S Senate due to its 60 percent requirement for stopping
debates.  I also note that most current laws have been passed by minority rule
gerrymander regimes.  Would such laws now need to get a 5 to 1 vote to repeal
them ?

Having a cost factor for voting is blatantly undemocratic.   Suppose a
proposal is to have an increase of income tax rates.  Guess which faction will
spend whatever it takes to stop the increase ?  It will not be the poor.