6 ms·

IMO legislators should spend most of their time (at least until a reasonable "break even" is achieved") striking old, erroneous, irrelevant laws.

YawningAngel 8y ago
These laws don't cost very much because they get deprecated through less formal mechanisms (they are reinterpreted, or the bodies responsible for enforcing or adjudicating them decline to do so), which makes this a very inefficient use of a legislature's time.
int_19h 8y ago
Better yet, attach a sunset clause to every law, proportional to the number of votes it gets (and maybe unanimously passed = no sunset). Now they'll have to spend some of their time renewing old laws, and if anything is too toxic for the majority to vote for, it goes away.
- michaelt 8y ago
  That would get rid of obsolete laws, but I'm not sure people would enjoy all the side-effects such a law would have, at least in the United States. For example, many more opportunities to cause government shutdowns, and many more must-pass bills that can be loaded with pork.
  - mr_spothawk 8y ago
    > loaded with sunset port. ftfy. and I'd add that being from the US, I'd expect that sunset clauses on all laws would have the effect of giving the legislators something to do other than raise money for reelection.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    It would be an interesting test of what is actually "must pass", though. I also think it would encourage less partisan and more consensus-built legislation if the number of votes it passes with extends the amount of time before it sunsets, esp. if the relationship is not linear. Right now, if you have 50%+1 vote in the House, and 60 in the Senate, you don't have to care about the rest, so you can make legislation as extreme as you can while remaining within those boundaries. But if the difference in getting extra votes is a renewal vote in 25 years (with, say, 3/4 supermajority passing) versus just 5 years (50%+1), those extra votes may well be worth fighting for with some concessions.

YawningAngel 8y ago

These laws don't cost very much because they get deprecated through less formal mechanisms (they are reinterpreted, or the bodies responsible for enforcing or adjudicating them decline to do so), which makes this a very inefficient use of a legislature's time.

int_19h 8y ago

Better yet, attach a sunset clause to every law, proportional to the number of votes it gets (and maybe unanimously passed = no sunset). Now they'll have to spend some of their time renewing old laws, and if anything is too toxic for the majority to vote for, it goes away.

michaelt 8y ago
That would get rid of obsolete laws, but I'm not sure people would enjoy all the side-effects such a law would have, at least in the United States. For example, many more opportunities to cause government shutdowns, and many more must-pass bills that can be loaded with pork.
- mr_spothawk 8y ago
  > loaded with sunset port. ftfy. and I'd add that being from the US, I'd expect that sunset clauses on all laws would have the effect of giving the legislators something to do other than raise money for reelection.
- int_19h 8y ago
  It would be an interesting test of what is actually "must pass", though. I also think it would encourage less partisan and more consensus-built legislation if the number of votes it passes with extends the amount of time before it sunsets, esp. if the relationship is not linear. Right now, if you have 50%+1 vote in the House, and 60 in the Senate, you don't have to care about the rest, so you can make legislation as extreme as you can while remaining within those boundaries. But if the difference in getting extra votes is a renewal vote in 25 years (with, say, 3/4 supermajority passing) versus just 5 years (50%+1), those extra votes may well be worth fighting for with some concessions.