[EM] 06/16/02 - Let's `Sort-Out' the Candidates:

[Michael Rouse]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Narins, Josh" <josh.narins at lehman.com>
To: <election-methods-list at eskimo.com>; <Saari at aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 3:35 PM
Subject: RE: [EM] 06/16/02 - Let's `Sort-Out' the Candidates:

> What if the law would only be the law if the current Congress actively
> supported it?
>
> For instance, the 100th Congress passes law X, the "Dumb Law of 1986"
>
> We know that the majority of the 100th Congress supported it.
>
> Next, the 101st Congress is elected, say, 10% turnover.
>
> Now, by default, the votes of the first 90% on the Dumb Law stay the same,
> although they can (petition to?) change their vote. The new 10% don't have
a
> default vote, and can only positively make one (no instant "party x = vote
> y" equations). If the new 10% vote against the "Dumb Law" in sufficient
> numbers so that BOTH
> 1. The total support is under 50%
> 2. The combined vote of all non-voting reps couldn't lift it above 50%
> the law is, effectively, repealed.
>
> Hmm, maybe the President should, for consistencies sake, get a chance to
> veto the repeal. That seems very fair.
>
> So, all laws would be at the pleasure of the CURRENT Congress.


I like the idea. I was trying to think of a clever way to have time-limited
laws, and this looks like it would work. It would probably have the effect
of clearing out a lot of the underbrush of outdated laws that are still on
the books, but which Congress is too lazy to repeal. I would possibly change
a couple of things, though (or at least look at them as options).

1. If the votes by new members of Congress reduced support for the bill
under the level needed to pass it, the remaining members of Congress would
be able to change their vote within a certain period of time, no waiver
needed.
2. If the bill then gained enough "changed" votes to be approved, it would
be resubmitted as a new bill for either the President's signature or veto.
If it did not gain enough votes, it would be repealed without ever reaching
the President's desk.

(The Libertarian in me operates under the assumption "When in doubt, toss it
out." If a bill does not clearly benefit the country enough to withstand
scrutiny by a new President and a new Congress, then it's probably safer not
to have it. In addition, it should never be harder to repeal a dumb law than
it is to pass it.)

Michael Rouse
mrouse at cdsnet.net

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em