.
The recent UK Brexit vote passed by a simple majority (52% in favor). Yet, here in America such an action would almost certainly be regarded as a "treaty" and require a 2/3rds majority in the Senate to enact.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/Supermajority-Vote.htm
At the state level, US states have varying supermajority requirements. For example, the famous Proposition 13 in California requires a 2/3rds legislative majority to pass a tax increase (even though the proposition itself was passed by (barely) less than a 2/3rds majority of the voters).
So, should the Brexit have been determined by a simple majority? If not, why not? And what other matters should require a supermajority in order to become law?
They had better re-think how to backpeddle on this one. FAST.
They are so damned stupid. They are worse than we are. Such haughtiness and arrogance and inability to even predict that this COULD happen. Now what?
All they are worried about is EMBARRASSING themselves now. NOW? Too late for embarrassment. The whole world is watching and the whole world is PISSED off.
A government that cannot even handle outcomes such as this atrocity, is no government at all; no wonder it is being torn down. Just like America. We will sit by and watch this and not see that this is happening. NOW. And to US as well as THEM. We are all out-of-control children banking on one more day with no reckoning and hoping that will hold us for now. Well, guess what? There is a new now. Today we have to face the music. We are all connected. We are all going to feel the brunt of anything that comes down the global pipe.
The only answer is to be filthy rich and hole up somewhere away from everything. Or go off the grid and learn to eat insects and find a clean stream until there is no water left.
Do they have any open bunkers for rent in Minnesota?
Are you referring to Brexit, or California's Proposition 13?....;-D...
Hello there Old School'
I think in most cases, whenever something is being considered for a reversal of its current policy.
To use another example.
We find ourselves with a Supreme court consisting of 8 members.
I am of the opinion that the court should stay at eight. The reason being that any finding would require more than a simple majority. I would actually prefer we go back to the original number of six, requiring a two thirds vote, 4 of 6.
Edit.
I didn't really look at the description under your question. For some reason, I rarely read the description and go straight to the question as written.
As to Prop 13...I, as you know live in California and like the property tax rate as capped.
I also like the idea of a direct vote vote deciding some issues because it is the voice of the people...Hpwever
We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic. We elect people to vote for us as a block in a district. A direct vote in the way of a referendum or ballot measure kind of goes against that unless used as a measure for our representatives in which to vote..
The question I have abs have not yet seen an answer for us the percentage of eligible people who actually voted ... I'm beginning to get the idea that the result is not what the majority of people wanted .. And therein lies the problem with not getting off your butt and participating
@Designer -- It seems a bit arbitary to me to require a simple 50%+1 majority to pass X, but a larger majority to repeal X. Would you like to require a 2/3rds vote of Congress to repeal Obamacare?
With respect to the SCOTUS, I once again see no principled reason why a 5-3 decision or 4-2 decision is better than a 5-4 or 4-3 decision. The only thing an even number of SCOTUS justices creates is the possibility of a deadlock, in which case the lower court decision (often decided by a single judge) is upheld. How does that benefit society?
But thank you for at least considering the question.
@ozgirl -- No knowledge of the actual Brexit voting results are needed to answer this question. It is an abstract philosophical one.
In democracies, we generally agree that some things (which we consider basic human rights) should not be altered by a majority of ANY size. We also tend to agree that most things should be decided by a simple majority.
I'm asking about the in-between cases. When are political questions so meaningful that they should only be altered by a supermajority of the people?
Hey Old School
This may surprise you but Yes, I would like to see a 2/3 vote to repeal any law...
I was editing/adding to my answer when you commented so may answer contains more than you originally saw
WE have one open position to the court right now, supposedly the deciding vote. We have one side saying "If He's elected , He'll put a conservative on the bench and you can kiss abortions good bye" and the other proclaiming a Hillary win would lead to the abolishment of the 2nd amendment via her appointment.
So its all up to one person to decide in a 9 member court.
I would like decisions to require at least one person to cross ideological lines...
@designer -- With respect, I still think you're letting your desired POLICY outcomes determine your PROCESS wishes.
The fact that the SCOTUS is currently 4-4 "conservative" and "liberal" is a historical accident. The court at various times has been dominated by one faction or the other. If the court is 7-1 in idelogical composition, one justice crossing ideological lines is irrelevant.
Your preference with respect to Proposition 13 is a POLICY preference (gosh, you like low taxes? I'm shocked). It produced the very unequal result where (in the late-1990s) my next-door neighbor and I lived in nearly identically-valued houses, yet my property taxes were 5 times what she was paying. Why should it require a supermajority to eliminate such a discrepancy?
OK, so you say you want a 2/3rds majority requirement to repeal any law. Why? How does that help? Why should "Whoops? We messed up. Let's not do that anymore" require substantially more support than "Let's try this?" Can you imagine if such a requirement had been in place during the Civil Rights movement? Would "colored people" still have separate bathrooms and separate drinking fountains?
Our votes elections are by simple majority. You are confusing a national/state election and the rules of congress.
No President has won by a supermajority in the USA.
In the USA the people would not have the opportunity to vote at all. It would be left up to the idiotic bungling buffoons in Congress..............so it would boil down to what would be best for them.
Yes, if 52% of the voting people want something it's a go; that is a majority and the democratic way of doing things. Our country does not hold referendums. Some states do. I have lived in two such states.
I'm thinking that soon there will be a real consequence for anyone who says brexit. Cutsie and serious rarely jive. It's bad enough to hear it on the news but to hear an individual say it really sux.
@m2c -- Please re-read the question. I was not asking about presidential elections. And, no, the supermajority requirement for treaties is not a rule of Congress. It is a constitutional requirement.
The question is fairly simple in form, although with rather complex and contingent answers.
@TM -- So, if 52% of TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBURHLZ vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment it's a done deal?
If not, why not?
I explain some things about which you feign profound ignorance:
1. PM Cameron WANTED this election, "knowing" it would squash the Brexit movement. He announced results of the latest negotiations with the EU by which he believed Britain had won concessions to keep membership worthwhile. Said announcement was in February 2016, with June 23 set as a referendum, by his edict, to vote EU membership up or down.
2. Such a referendum was NOT unprecedented. Britain joined the "European Common Market", later the EC then the EU, in 1973. There was a stay-or-leave referendum in 1975, with about two-thirds of the electorate voting to stay in the ECM.
3. Both in 1975 and in 2016, there were no terms of some particular majority or even plurality needed. It was a simple vote of the people's will. He never said "4 percent of the voters cannot be counted on to know what is best for them, should only that or lesser margin vote to leave".
4. As Brexit proponents accurately represented, The EU has become a monster dominating a once-proud and once-independent nation. It ceased being a trade pact and became a sovereign body meddling and interfering in national affairs. It did not even do its job as a trade organization, with there being no trade agreement with the Far East where 60 percent of the world's peoples live. When Angela Merkel threw open Germany's borders to bomb-strapping terrorists, the laws of the EU dictated that those bomb-strapping terrorists were free to enter Britain at their leisure.
It is not as if there is no "supermajority" model for constitutional governance. Forward-thinking framers of the United States Constitution, a document that you despise, wrote a two-thirds majority of the state legislatures' approval for Amendments. A two-thirds majority is also needed for an override of a President's veto. Such things were established as rules, and no such rules were tacked on to the EU membership referendum.
Finally, the Brexit Referendum does NOT force the British Government to pursue separation under the auspices of Article 50. They could have an equivalent of Dictator Obama come along and declare he does not care what the voters wanted, that he is just going to shove something down people's throats. However, the current government placed its confidence in this issue, and will be stepping down with its having been rejected.
Libs. Not only losers, but SORE losers.
I think it will depend on the issue at stake. We elect officials with simple majority but their time is limited to area and duration but when changing the constitution it requires a much more involved process.
I think something like BREXIT should have had a higher threshold due to the impact on the country as a whole.
But the UK sets their own threshold.
Hello again Old school.
I, contrary to your assertion prefer that policy process determine outcome.
This is true whether I agree with the outcome or not.
I understand the question though. Is it better to have a simple majority or a "super majority" deciding issues.
I prefer the super majority approach. Let me turn it around , What if 50% + 1 decide it is legal to segregate lunch counters again...would that work..
@DTT -- Thank you for your usual TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ IS STOOPID...AND EBIL!" rant which has almost nothing to do with the question I asked.
At some point, you reiterated the points in the US Constitution where supermajorities are required, but you provide no philosophical justification for them other than "THE FOUNDING FATHERS WAS AWESOME...AND TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHZ SUX!"
I suppose you could try going back and ACTUALLY READING THE QUESTION before answering it, but that would probably only embarass you, much like your habit of not actually reading links you post which you believe support your positions.
Overall, your anwer is about par for the course for you....;-D...
At last, someone who actually READ THE QUESTION and answered it.
I agree with you that the answer boils down to "it depends." I was trying to field ideas about "depends upon what" but at least this is a start.
@Dmis -- No, I prefer that lunch counters NOT be segregated REGARDLESS of the process that produces that outcome.
As I noted under another answer, we largely agree that SOME human rights/legal protections should be absolute and NOT subject to Tyranny of the Majority. We also largely agree that MOST questions should be settled by some sort of nominal majority rule.
You seem to prefer that the status quo be protected by supermajority requirement, and you have yet to offer an abstract philosophical reason why. There is probably an argument to be made for that, but you haven't made it.
@ozg256 -- OK, I misunderstood your intent.
As for the "apathetic majority", that's largely true of contemporary US politics. I am open to suggestions on how to address the issue.
Our laws if voted on by the people are a simple majority wins.
Our laws as voted on in the Congress are still a simply majority wins but there is a 60 vote threshold to meet before the a bill can be debated.
These are the actions that require a 2/3 vote to inact in Congress. It does not specifically address Denounciation of a Treaty but logic says it would require the same a ratification of a treaty.
@m2c -- Thank you for repeating the information I provided via a link in my original question.
You are also incorrect insofar as some states (e.g. California) require a 2/3rds majority of the people to pass some laws (e.g. proposed tax increase initiatives).
Care to re-read the question yet again and attempt to answer it?
Your state may require 2/3 to enact laws by the people. Mine does not. That can and should be determined by each state that is one of the wonderful things about state rights, we can do it how we want and you don't get to tell us otherwise.
Should the UK have relied on a simple majority vote? That would depend on their laws and how they are written...they should follow their laws. So evidently, yes they should have...no one is claiming it was an illegal election.
