When should a supermajority be required for a political action in a democracy (or democratic republic)?

Hi Old School! I know nothing about supermajorities in the USA, and it is up to the American people how their own country does things. I often express opinions on matters over there, but I'm not telling anyone what to do. But what I want to say is, a majority of 52% is perfectly OK with me. I voted to stay in, but if a majority of my people voted the other way, I accept that. I won't break out the champagne to celebrate, but you win some, you lose some. I have to correct Delivering on a factual point. We did not join the EU in 1975. We applied to join it in 1961, President DeGaule of France vetoed our membership, we did join in 1973, and the 1975 referendum was on whether to remain members. I would like to add that I don't think voting should be compulsory, as in Australia. I believe those who choose not to vote are making as valid a statement as those who do. It is their right to choose whether to vote or not. And the turn-out in the referendum was strong. If it had been low, I might be complaining, but it wasn't, so I'm not. The amount of interest expressed in it made it obvious that the turn-out was going to be high. I will give you a link to an article from the BBC News website. It is a few years out of date, but it gives you the history of the formation of the Union, and I used it to check my own facts. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3583801.stm

@HD -- Thanks for your perspective.

In the US Constitution and in the government makeup of several US states, some questions are settled only by supermajorities. For example, you've probably read many of the discussions on AM pertaining to firearms laws. The US could conceivably alter the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution to change the framework of those laws, but doing so would require ratification by supermajorities in the House of Representaives, in the Senate, and among states ratifying the change (all of which are unlikely).

My personal feeling about the Brexit (which I weakly oppose) is questions that large SHOULD be determined by a supermajority, but I can see where others might argue otherwise. I don't think there is any one "right" answer to this question (either specifically about the Brexit or about government actions in general).

I doubt 52% of liberals would carry the day regardless of how they voted, especially on that. 

We don't have national referendums anyway.  Changing the Constitution has one of the tougher voting hurdles to survive. 

@TM -- Exactly. Supermajority requirements are built into our Constitutional system. They apply to some things and not others. My question was for what things are supermajority requirements appropriate and for what things should simple majorities carry the day.

But you and the other usuals are so wrapped up in TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ MUST NEVER WIN! than you can't answer the question in any coherent way.

I don't blame you for being a little embarrassed, old school.  I doubt most of the others even caught it.

And in Australia we have compulsory voting - which leads to more substantial evidence of a majority decision. 

@abstraction -- That's a slightly separate question. I'm not sure how I feel about compulsory voting. I've thought of offering some sort of incentive (e.g. a tax credit) for showing up to vote (I don't thing voting for or against anything or anyone should be compulsory), but usually such incentives end up being skewed. For example, many Americans pay little or no income tax because their income is so low. A tax credit against taxes they don't pay wouldn't motivate them to vote.

I guess it works for Australia, but any sort of compulsory voting system would be a tough sell in America.

Not a separate question - it's about who made the decision: When only 72% of voters turned out and it was decided by 52% => that means that 37.4% of the voting population made the decision. This is far less than a majority who determined britain's future.  

What's the problem with compulsory voting? It's not less 'democratic' - it's a civic duty, like paying taxes. 

* Who is it who doesn't vote? The poor fail to be represented in places like the US, and there is evidence that they also have more difficulty getting time off work to vote, despite laws supposed to protect that. 

* It ensures (along with proper preferential voting systems) that the majority view wins - avoiding minority wins. 

@abstraction -- You are correct. It is a separate but related issue, and voter turnout is certainly an issue in the United States (perhaps in the UK as well). On the other hand, our concept of a broad universal franchise is very modern. Historically, only a small subset of the population had the franchise even in the most democratic nation-states. Expanding the franchise has both advantages (more people/factions are represented in the outcome) and disadvantages (it can lead to tyranny of the majority).

It's also worth noting that the USA is somewhat unique in its 50%+1 winner-take-alll system of government. Most other democracies use some form of proportional representation which tends to give minorities more say in governing and encourages people to vote.

I think a supermajority should only apply to constitutional matters. (Since the U.K. doesn't have a written constitution we have no such protection. The parliament has supreme powers and can in theory do absolutely anything.)

Government policy should be decided by simple majority. Supermajority would make the process too deadlocked to function. Deadlock is pretty much the point of supermajority. It's just there to prevent subversion of a society's core values.

Certain things just shouldn't be allowed at all. No parliamentary system should ever be capable of voting to subordinate itself to a foreign body. The entire concept is of an international governmental body like the E.U. or the U.N. is treason. Nothing can be set above the parliament.

I don't necessarily agree with you on all points, but I appreciate your views.

I think I should point out that while it is not compulsory to vote in the UK, it is compulsory to be registered to vote. Which I believe is how it should be.
I do not support proportional representation, as I think it results in governments being formed by deals done by men in dark rooms, rather than what the people voted for.
Five years ago, we had a referendum on the alternative vote system of proportional representation, which is used in Australia, because the Liberal Democrats have been wanting PR for years, and insisted it be part of the coalition agreement. I voted against it, as did the majority.

Before I forget to mention it, we use the first past the post system in Parliamentary elections, and when most local councils are elected, but proportional representation is used in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, and in those cities which have elected mayors. The Northern Ireland government also uses proportional representation, where it was used deliberately because it is unfair, to give Sinn Fein more seats than they would have otherwise, because it was seen as necessary to the peace process. Occasionally, you here politicians admit it.

@HD -- There is an excellent article in a recent issue of Atlantic magazine which defends the necessity of "deals done by men in dark rooms." It's specific to the American political system, but I think the realities it examines are common in one form or another in all democratic societies.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/

Going to 50%+1 winner-take-all (the US system) instead of proportional representation (most other similar democracies) doesn't necessarily make democracy more responsive.

But I thank you again for your views.