3 ms·

I'm curious: do you think all elections should require a supermajority? Perhaps we shouldn't elect a President unless one candidate can get 60%? And why shouldn

I'm curious: do you think all elections should require a supermajority? Perhaps we shouldn't elect a President unless one candidate can get 60%? And why shouldn't all elective bodies require 60% to pass legislation? For that matter, shouldn't all corporate boards use the 60% threshold? This notion that majority-rules is a great decision procedure everywhere EXCEPT the US Senate seems very odd to me. I think an even more stringent bar for legislation would produce better legislation rather than more of it. Why do you think requiring a supermajority increases the quality of legislation?

waterlesscloud 14y ago
Why do you think there's a contradiction here? Is there some rule that says all elective bodies must have the same rules? One doesn't. And so?
- MichaelSalib 14y ago
  I haven't seen anyone proffer a reason to deviate from majority-rules decision procedure. If you think it benefits the Senate, then you should be able to articulate what those benefits are and explain why they other governing bodies wouldn't also benefit. So, can anyone explain to me why corporate boards shouldn't adopt a 60% majority rule as well?
  - noblethrasher 14y ago
    In the case of the Senate, it only requires a simple majority to pass legislation. Terminating debate is what requires a supermajority. That seems fair to me since the Senate is supposed to be extremely deliberative. Also, the 60% supermajority isn't even that arbitrary: two-thirds of the Senate are up for reelection every couple of years. The requirement of a 60% supermajority to terminate deliberation almost ensures that the debate will benefit from the members that can afford the longer-term outlook (i.e. 5-6 years).
    - MichaelSalib 14y ago
      The distinction between terminating debate and passing legislation is disingenuous. You can't pass legislation without terminating debate. Which means that you can't pass legislation unless you have 60%. And of course it is arbitrary. In the recent past, the threshold was 66%, not 60%. And in the distant past, Senate norms precluded this sort of arbitrary interference. Finally, the idea that the 60% threshold leads to more debate is silly. Consider how many judicial nominations are delayed for months but then sail through with 80-100% votes.
      - noblethrasher 14y ago
        The fact of the matter is that at any given time there are three different classes of sitting senators. The requirement of supermajority that is around two-thirds reflects that there is a qualitative difference between a group that doesn’t face reelection for another half decade and one that is likely in campaign mode. Thus, the supermajority is actually a simple majority among the classes of senators. Also, while a threat of a filibuster might not lead to more deliberation among the members, it certainly signals to the public that something important might be at stake. At the very least it will cause journalist to report and/or editorialize on the issue. With regard to judicial nominations, I know that there are some shenanigans but I would also expect an ideal process to look just about identical since the floor vote should be delayed until each senator has performed an independent investigation of the nominee.

waterlesscloud 14y ago

Why do you think there's a contradiction here? Is there some rule that says all elective bodies must have the same rules? One doesn't. And so?

MichaelSalib 14y ago
I haven't seen anyone proffer a reason to deviate from majority-rules decision procedure. If you think it benefits the Senate, then you should be able to articulate what those benefits are and explain why they other governing bodies wouldn't also benefit. So, can anyone explain to me why corporate boards shouldn't adopt a 60% majority rule as well?
- noblethrasher 14y ago
  In the case of the Senate, it only requires a simple majority to pass legislation. Terminating debate is what requires a supermajority. That seems fair to me since the Senate is supposed to be extremely deliberative. Also, the 60% supermajority isn't even that arbitrary: two-thirds of the Senate are up for reelection every couple of years. The requirement of a 60% supermajority to terminate deliberation almost ensures that the debate will benefit from the members that can afford the longer-term outlook (i.e. 5-6 years).
  - MichaelSalib 14y ago
    The distinction between terminating debate and passing legislation is disingenuous. You can't pass legislation without terminating debate. Which means that you can't pass legislation unless you have 60%. And of course it is arbitrary. In the recent past, the threshold was 66%, not 60%. And in the distant past, Senate norms precluded this sort of arbitrary interference. Finally, the idea that the 60% threshold leads to more debate is silly. Consider how many judicial nominations are delayed for months but then sail through with 80-100% votes.
    - noblethrasher 14y ago
      The fact of the matter is that at any given time there are three different classes of sitting senators. The requirement of supermajority that is around two-thirds reflects that there is a qualitative difference between a group that doesn’t face reelection for another half decade and one that is likely in campaign mode. Thus, the supermajority is actually a simple majority among the classes of senators. Also, while a threat of a filibuster might not lead to more deliberation among the members, it certainly signals to the public that something important might be at stake. At the very least it will cause journalist to report and/or editorialize on the issue. With regard to judicial nominations, I know that there are some shenanigans but I would also expect an ideal process to look just about identical since the floor vote should be delayed until each senator has performed an independent investigation of the nominee.