I subscribe to the FA01 Theory.  

 

Any laws passed that limit, restrict, or alter a civil liberty should require a 90% vote.  In FA01 land, he thinks 90% of the people are normal and logical (relatively), but there's always a 10% perverse population.  You couldn't get 90% of the population (electorate) to vote in favor of slavery, even 200 years ago.  You wouldn't be able to get 90% of the electorate to support murder, theft, and rape, among many other things.  Things that would likely be legalized are things like many banned substances, prostitution, and simple fighting.  Things like abortion wouldn't get a 90% vote in either direction, but you could probably get a 90% vote on certain aspects of abortion; like abortion at 40 weeks w/o any underlying health concerns for mother or baby when no rape has occurred.

 

I would require laws that don't necessarily involve civil liberties to reach a 65% vote to pass.  This way its unlikely that the results of a revote would change from year to year.  If a law can be passed today, but next week it wouldn't have, then it shouldn't be a law.  You could get a 65% vote on things like interstate highways, a strong national defense, and anti trust laws.  A 65% vote would possibly fail on issues such as ACA, immigration reform, and funding of certain agencies.

---