Should it take a supermajority to make a bill law, but only half to repeal a law?

Question

The difference would be that about 17% of the voters or legislature would have to change its mind in order to change the law; not just 1%.

Another effect would be fewer laws. Those that got passed would be better laws, of which people were more sure (i.e. two-thirds sure, and not just "barely half" sure).

Really think about it.
Most people's knee-jerk reaction is: "Everything will get repealed because it will only take a third!"
Well, no, it would still take a half to repeal, just like it takes now. That's the first thing I said.

(That means that in order to amend it, it would take 2/3 to pass the new version. They would already have the 1/2 necessary to repeal the old version, and could make it part of the same bill in order to be sure the new one would actually get passed).

You would have less total laws to remember, and you would be 17% more likely to agree with them. The way it is now is neither better nor as good.
So why not?

Has anyone ever even run it by you before?
I'm trying to clarify it. I'll trim it and try it again later.
But yes, I personally think it's a good idea, however, do you? That WAS the question.

Answer 1

Approval of laws is more difficult because it must be consented to by more people while repeal needs only a few votes because it is assumed that the law was legal but must only be cancelled.

Answer 2

are you trying to convince us?