You would also prevent many legitimate but controversial laws, and dramatically reduce the impact of electoral decisions -- what is the point of voting when you know that any representative will probably be unable to pass almost any law? At this point, i don't think more disenfranchisement is the way forward.

> require 80% support to make a new law and 20% support to remove any law currently on the books

That's simply brilliant. Did you come up with that yourself, by the way?

I think that people could be persuaded that this should be a fundamental principle like democracy or free speech. It sufficiently meta that it wouldn't carry a lot of political baggage. For example, a person who ardently supports a particular law might accept this 80/20 principle even knowing that his favorite law could get stuck down.

This idea should be given a catchy name so it can spread as a meme.

I'm unaware of a specific name, but it's not a new idea. See The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein. (link to Google Books reference http://goo.gl/IdBoU)

I stole it from a review of the moon is a hard mistress. Though the original only requires 2/3 to make a law and 1/3 to end it.

This is great!

My own wish is for a "balanced budget" amendment for complexity: the government gets a finite amount of complexity they can spend on laws & bureaucracy, and to enact more laws they must first remove others. But you'd need a way to quantify complexity. Your solution is much more practical.