I lay a fair bit of fault also at an almost visual/UI level of how we write laws. If you look at our law books, they are almost all words/text. Paragraphs and

I lay a fair bit of fault also at an almost visual/UI level of how we write laws. If you look at our law books, they are almost all words/text. Paragraphs and paragraphs of it. Yet in a lot of areas of law or regulation, graphical explanations are rarely used when they could help clarify immensely. To use a simple example, just think of when a map is needed -- and whether you would try to describe that by text. I also have an analogy in my mind that when you ask a typical programmer to explain something, they start showing you the code. Only a skilled rare few have a picture in their mind that they can draw you the relationship between the things they have written (and start a chat based on that). Lawyers / politicians are by default writing in long, wordy, text to try to lay out complicated systems. This is often not ideal, when a diagram or schematic of what you are legislating to have happen would be more clear. It also produces an effect where laws tend to just bolt on more text, and have little contextualization of what already exists or what is being modified. And I also have a feeling it tends to miss the problem cases. I seriously believe our hundred books of CFR/laws are a significant result of this. If people were forced to summarize how a proposed law interacts with current laws, etc. I think there would be more hesitation and better thought about what is being enacted.