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

[Narins, Josh]

Rouse> 1. If the votes by new members of Congress reduced support
Rouse> for the bill under the level needed to pass it, the
Rouse> remaining members of Congress would be able to change 
Rouse> their vote within a certain period of time, no waiver
Rouse> needed.

That makes a good deal of sense. Something like an "alert" period when the
threshhold of newly weighing in Reps is reached that would put the fate of
the law in question.

Rouse> 2. If the bill then gained enough "changed" votes to be 
Rouse> approved, it would be resubmitted as a new bill for either
Rouse> the President's signature or veto.  If it did not gain 
Rouse> enough votes, it would be repealed without ever reaching
Rouse> the President's desk.

Why should the process for removal be distinctly easier than installation?
The earlier Congress had to submit the law to the President to make it
official, I believe the later Congress should similarly put the law to the
President for dismissal. When Congress currently repeals their own laws,
they don't need the President's signature? Either way, I like the idea of
the identical backstop in both directions.

In the same vein, if a bill of a previous Congress had entered "alert" mode,
and then either the new congresspeople who hadn't yet voted, or the changed
votes of more senior congresspeople ensured at least a couple more years of
its existence, I do not believe the President has to be involved, since no
final decision was made by the current Congress to change its mind.

Of course, the danger of the system we are talking about is simply that
apparently Congress gets cowed and spineless mighty quickly in the face of
an incredibly well-heeled jingoistic war monger.


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Rouse [mailto:mrouse at cdsnet.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:51 PM
To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [EM] 06/16/02 - Let's `Sort-Out' the Candidates:



----- 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



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient(s) named above.  If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  This communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial product, an official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official statement of Lehman Brothers.  Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free.  Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as such.  All information is subject to change without notice.


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