Dan Walters: Supermajority votes undemocratic? It depends on the issue

[charrison]

Linkage

A coalition of political interest groups, led by public employee unions, is promoting a ballot measure that would, if enacted by voters, abolish the two-thirds vote for state budgets and the taxes to finance them, effectively eliminating the power of minority Republicans to affect state spending decisions.
The measure would lower the threshold from two-thirds to 55 percent. With the Democratic margins in both legislative houses frozen above that percentage, Democrats would be free to do whatever they wished on spending and tax matters.

It is, proponents of the change argue, inherently undemocratic to allow a legislative minority to dictate fiscal policy for the state, noting that California is one of just a handful of states requiring supermajority votes on budgetary matters.

The argument may be valid, but it is more than a bit ironic that the same political interests that want to eliminate supermajority votes on budgets in California are very supportive of the Democratic filibusters on President Bush's judicial appointments in the U.S. Senate. It takes a supermajority vote of 60 senators to break a filibuster (ending otherwise unlimited debate), so on highly controversial matters of any kind, 60 votes become the threshold in the Senate.

 

[Zebo]

It would be nice if every law everywhere required 75% or more approval to pass. If you can't get that percentage then it's not such a good idea IMO.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zebo
It would be nice if every law everywhere required 75% or more approval to pass. If you can't get that percentage then it's not such a good idea IMO.

Then you could very well stuck with a tyrany of the majority. But I do agree, it would cut way back on useless legislation and spending. I think tax increases should be only be passed by a super majority.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo
It would be nice if every law everywhere required 75% or more approval to pass. If you can't get that percentage then it's not such a good idea IMO.

Then you could very well stuck with a tyrany of the majority. But I do agree, it would cut way back on useless legislation and spending. I think tax increases should be only be passed by a super majority.

Not at all. The minority is protected by the consitituion and courts from the begining. It's only the millions of laws since then which would have had a harder time passing. Most of these simple majority passed laws do in fact take away from the minority instead of the other way around. Brady bill for example.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo
It would be nice if every law everywhere required 75% or more approval to pass. If you can't get that percentage then it's not such a good idea IMO.

Then you could very well stuck with a tyrany of the majority. But I do agree, it would cut way back on useless legislation and spending. I think tax increases should be only be passed by a super majority.

Not at all. The minority is protected by the consitituion and courts from the begining. It's only the millions of laws since then which would have had a harder time passing. Most of these simple majority passed laws do in fact take away from the minority instead of the other way around. Brady bill for example.

It would have taken longer for civil rights legislation to be passed and there would probably be few social programs today.

 

[Zebo]

The 14th amendment was passed by a supermajority. What other civil rights legislation? The courts then overturned plessy v furgesson in brown using the 14th. Social programs most new deal was passed also by super majority. Some we can live without. Everyone of these simple majority issues is very contensious because only at least half want it.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zebo
The 14th amendment was passed by a supermajority. What other civil rights legislation? The courts then overturned plessy v furgesson in brown using the 14th. Social programs most new deal was passed also by super majority. Some we can live without. Everyone of these simple majority issues is very contensious because only at least half want it.

All amendments are passed with a super majority and that has only happened 26 times in the last 225 years. That would be the effect of a super majority on all legislation.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo
The 14th amendment was passed by a supermajority. What other civil rights legislation? The courts then overturned plessy v furgesson in brown using the 14th. Social programs most new deal was passed also by super majority. Some we can live without. Everyone of these simple majority issues is very contensious because only at least half want it.

All amendments are passed with a super majority and that has only happened 26 times in the last 225 years. That would be the effect of a super majority on all legislation.

There are thousands of laws passed by super majorities, not only amendments to the const. They are usually the good ones everyone likes. I thought most republicans were less government interferance? Super majorities would insure this. Now any old biddy who says "there should be a law" gets it squeked though as a ridder on another bad piece of legislation.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo
The 14th amendment was passed by a supermajority. What other civil rights legislation? The courts then overturned plessy v furgesson in brown using the 14th. Social programs most new deal was passed also by super majority. Some we can live without. Everyone of these simple majority issues is very contensious because only at least half want it.

All amendments are passed with a super majority and that has only happened 26 times in the last 225 years. That would be the effect of a super majority on all legislation.

There are thousands of laws passed by super majorities, not only amendments to the const. They are usually the good ones everyone likes. I thought most republicans were less government interferance? Super majorities would insure this. Now any old biddy who says "there should be a law" gets it squeked though as a ridder on another bad piece of legislation.

Yes less goverment interferance is good, but by the same token, the majority is not always right.