Require any change to the constitution to be approved twice, with an election held in between
Steps to make it happen
- The parliament first votes to approve a plan to change the constitution.
- The exact words of the plan are fixed and shared widely so that anyone can read them.
- At the next election, people look at the plan as well as the candidates when they decide how to vote.
- After the election, the new parliament votes again on the same words.
- The constitution changes only if the plan is approved a second time.
- If the words are changed along the way, the whole process starts over from the beginning.
- Taking time to think about changing the constitution across the whole country becomes the normal way.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal covers every amendment to a constitution, whether it adds, removes, or rewrites an article. The core of the system is that the same amendment is approved twice, with one general election of the parliament held in between. The current parliament gives the first approval, and the share of votes needed follows the rules of each society. The approved plan is fixed word for word and made public, and the new parliament chosen at the next election decides only yes or no, without making any changes. If even a small change is made to the wording, the process goes back to the first approval. If the new parliament does not decide within its term, the plan disappears. In a society that has referendums, a referendum may replace the second approval, but even then a set minimum period must pass between the first approval and the vote. This condition applies in the same way when an election is used, to prevent an election from being moved up just to rush an amendment. As an exception, fixes that do not change the meaning, such as correcting typos or fixing article numbers that have drifted out of order, can be done with a single approval, after a review body independent of the parliament confirms that the meaning does not change. On the other hand, while a state of emergency is declared, neither the first nor the second approval can be given.
BenefitsThe foundation is decided with calm judgment, not the momentum of the moment
The biggest advantage is that at least one election's worth of time passes between the decision on an amendment and its final approval. During that time, experts, citizens' groups, and ordinary people can examine the plan carefully and point out problems. Because the final decision is made after the emotional mood following a crisis has settled, it is easier to avoid amendments people will regret. In addition, since the amendment is clearly presented as an issue in the election, voters can vote knowing the candidates' views, and the amendment gains democratic backing. If the current majority loses the next election, the amendment does not pass, so it becomes harder for those in power to rush to lock in a system that suits them. Because an amendment cannot pass without support from people with different views, its content is more likely to aim for broad agreement, and the resulting constitution has a base for being respected for a long time. It is also worth noting that the process is easy to follow, so anyone, including children, can understand how a constitution changes.
DrawbacksEven needed reforms are delayed, and the will of people today is held back
The point critics weigh most heavily is that this system makes the will of the majority of people alive today wait for years. Even changes that should happen quickly, such as an amendment writing the rights of people who have been discriminated against into the constitution, or one fixing an outdated system of government, are delayed by at least one election. Considering that people suffer in the meantime, caution is not neutral and may end up protecting those who benefit from the current system. Also, an election asks voters about many issues at once, so the amendment alone does not decide how people vote, and it cannot be said that the second approval truly reflects the public will. Conversely, there is a risk that the constitutional question could dominate the election and push other issues of daily life aside. For a society that needs to put its constitution in order quickly, such as when rebuilding a country after a conflict, the system is hard to use. Furthermore, if formal amendment becomes difficult, there is a worry that the temptation grows for the government to change the constitution in practice by changing how its articles are interpreted, a less visible method.
Learn the background
A constitution is the most basic rule of a society, setting the limits of government power and the basic rights of people. Yet around the world, there have been repeated cases in which the majority of the moment rewrote the constitution while it had momentum and locked in a system that favored itself. Right after a major incident or crisis, while anger and fear are still strong, amendments that would not normally be chosen can be decided in a short time. Also, parliamentary elections tend to focus on the economy and daily life, and it is not unusual for voters to cast their votes without knowing how lawmakers intend to change the constitution. As a result, amendments move forward that voters never remember approving, or deep divisions remain in the country after an amendment. Some countries have long used a two-stage amendment process with an election in between, but in many societies a single decision is enough to amend the constitution. The more basic the rule, the more it calls for building in time to check, rather than speed of decision.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes