system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Enacting a new law should require 60% of the vote, removing an old one should require 40%

EDIT2: The rule would be something like: "To enact a new law, it needs to be supported by **more than 60%** of  parliament. To remove an old law, the removal needs to be supported by  **more than 40%** of parliament.". To avoid ridiculous scenarios where 60% creates a new law and the other 40% removes it the next day.

Disclaimer: I'm coming at this from an European perspective, but I think it applies to U.S politics as well. I'm also a somewhat libertarian, and this proposal would probably make the object-level politics more to my liking.

I believe that it should require a larger-than-majority share to create new laws, and that a smaller-than-majority should be able to remove old laws. The exact numbers might not necessarily be 60% and 40%, but they are numbers to start the discussion. Some reasons:

Why are we so obsessed with a majority anyway? What makes the 50% number so special? It is "natural" in some sense, but that shouldn't prevent us from experimenting with other models. It prevents "gridlocks" when a group is forced to decide between options, but this isn't an issue when we are adding and removing legislation to an already existing corpus.

A moral argument: Laws are a restriction of what you are allowed to do. Making new laws reduces the liberty of the people. It is reasonable that there are additional protections for this to happen. This is already the case for constitutional law, why not extend it?

Most modern nations have incredible amounts of legislation. Even people who study law their entire lives can only become competent in small subfields. This might be a consequence of societies becoming "more complicated", but I never seen a good argument for this. I believe that reducing the amount of legislation would be a good thing, and this proposal would be a tool to do so. Also, it would increase the "selection pressure" on laws, forcing them to be better.

It would make polarization less of an issue. Elections would be less of an all-or-nothing affair. A party my cooperate with a second party to remove a law it dislikes, while simultaneously be part of a larger coalition enacting new laws.

A risk is that a minority coalition threatens to trash laws left and right unless their demands are met, but I think and hope that voters would punish such a behavior.

I know that this will probably never happen, but I still like the idea. I never seen any discussion of this anywhere before. Am I missing something obvious?

EDIT1: Removed.
gpt
From a practical standpoint, wouldn’t this create a bizarre scenario where a law could be created today and rescinded tomorrow, by more or less the exact same government?

That sort of uncertainty would create lots of instability, this is not a good idea.