4 ms·
All you need for constitutional reform is a 50% majority on a referendum. That seems way too easy.
by rdmsr 9y ago
All you need for constitutional reform is a 50% majority on a referendum. That seems way too easy.
- matt_wulfeck 9y agoTotally agree. Constitutional changes should be difficult by design.
- mavdi 9y agoSame saga with Brexit. 52% condemned the rest and the generations to come to political insanity.
- untog 9y agoA timely warning to the US, too - as more and more Senate votes are being decided by 50% majority rather than their traditional 2/3 (EDIT: sorry, 3/5). That both parties indulge in it should be worrying to everyone.
- aanm1988 9y agoThe US should worry more about the electoral college finally breaking down and allowing the minority to control the presidency. Should worry more about gerrymandering too.
- int_19h 9y agoWith Senate, the simple 50% majority is by design. That's consistent with most other bicameral parliaments out there, which also vote on a simple majority basis. Since the issues they can vote on are restricted by the Constitution, it's not really a big deal. The big deal is amending the Constitution itself, which is extremely difficult (if anything, probably more difficult than it should be).
- gdudeman 9y agoAdditionally, the Senate gives minority population states a vastly outsized vote. North Dakota and California get equal say. 50 Senators do not come close to representing 50% of the US population.
- hackuser 9y ago> Since the issues they can vote on are restricted by the Constitution, it's not really a big deal. I don't agree. The U.S. Senate is very powerful; those restrictions aren't very broad. > the simple 50% majority is by design It depends what you mean. The filibuster, which requires 60% majority, has been part of the Senate since around the 1840s; clearly many generations of Senators thought it was important and intended that it continue.
- aanm1988 9y agoYeah, but the republicans do what they want. Many probably thought the whole actually voting on supreme court nominees should continue.
- int_19h 9y agoThe filibuster was always removable by a simple majority, though, so it was a self-applied restriction, not an external one. Which limited its efficiency greatly - anyone relying on filibuster knew that if they pushed too hard, it would go away.
- hackuser 9y ago> The filibuster was ... It is ... it's still there, just not for confirmations of appointments by the executive branch.
- slurry 9y agoIt was 3/5, not 2/3, to break a filibuster, and the use of filibusters had been getting to unprecedented levels. The argument above was that constitutional change should be hard I.e. require a supermajority. The Senate rules as followed recently have been requiring a supermajority for ANY change. That is unhealthy.
- hackuser 9y ago> It was 3/5, not 2/3, to break a filibuster It still is. Filibusters have been banned only for confirmations of appointments by the President.