To prevent this from happening and to prevent the passage of something while the people are "off-guard," there has to be the option of a revote, such that if a certain percentage of the people declare they want a second vote on the bill, it will be granted. If it passes a second time, then there must not have been enough concern in the populace to warrant opposing the bill, so it becomes law.

     In addition to the power to request a re-vote, all legislation must pass the test of time. Many have heard of the antiquated laws that still exist on the books, such as laws regarding securing horses to hitching posts, etc. Many would say these old laws are harmless since they are not enforced, but I would say that the more laws that exist that are not enforced, the less respect people have for all laws.

     The amount of time that can pass before a law must be re-ratified depends upon how much of the electorate voted for the law the last time it was ratified. If a law was passed with a 50% approval, it would need to be re-ratified before 10 years had passed. If the law passed with a 75% or more approval rating, it could wait for 20 years before needing to be re-ratified.

     In this way, laws which prove not to work or are made irrelevant by change can be eliminated. Those laws which reflect one political culture can be removed when the culture changes. This will also greatly reduce the volume of laws passed, keeping the body of the law simple enough for even the common man to be familiar with all the law in its entirety without the assistance of a lawyer.

     In addition, the Ideal Legislature would have a full-proof protection against packaged-legislation that forces the acceptance of one idea in order to obtain a popular one. (For example, to improve competition in the communication industry, you had to accept censorship of the Internet.) I don't know that any methodological measure could be devised that could not be circumvented, so probably the safest bet would be to allow for the ratification body to have more than just an approve/disapprove option. A third option they could have would be a disapprove conditionally, followed by the section in the bill which is offensive.

     If the number who approve is less than 50%, but the sum of the approve and disapprove conditionally is 50% or more, then the bill must be reworked by the drafting body and presented again.