Why 60% to pass some legislation?

[dad49er]

Simple question really. From a purely philosophical view point why should any legislation require 60% to pass?
I might be able to see it for SCOTUS justices, and if we have to have filibusters (which I oppose too) I guess 60% is as a good bar as any.

But the cornerstone of our democracy is when you elect a legislature, the majority rules.

That means when one party gets 50 percent plus one of the vote, they are the majority.

If they agree on a legislative program, they pass it.

If the majority of the people disagree, then they will vote the majority party out and put the other party in power.

We should all agree with this. It speaks to our sense of fairness.

We may not like what the majority party does but we need to behave as the "loyal opposition," do what we can do to shape public opinion and persuade the majority party to buy into our position.

This seems obvious but unfortunately it doesn't happen for some legislation.

Forget what party currently holds the majority. Not so long ago it was the Republicans.
From a philosophical view point, why 60%?
Why not 50%, plus one?

[darknessesedge]

Simple question really. From a purely philosophical view point why should any legislation require 60% to pass?
I might be able to see it for SCOTUS justices, and if we have to have filibusters (which I oppose too) I guess 60% is as a good bar as any.

But the cornerstone of our democracy is when you elect a legislature, the majority rules.

That means when one party gets 50 percent plus one of the vote, they are the majority.

If they agree on a legislative program, they pass it.

If the majority of the people disagree, then they will vote the majority party out and put the other party in power.

We should all agree with this. It speaks to our sense of fairness.

We may not like what the majority party does but we need to behave as the "loyal opposition," do what we can do to shape public opinion and persuade the majority party to buy into our position.

This seems obvious but unfortunately it doesn't happen for some legislation.

Forget what party currently holds the majority. Not so long ago it was the Republicans.
From a philosophical view point, why 60%?
Why not 50%, plus one?

I dont know why it takes 60...

[camarozz]

I think the reason was to limit the control of one party; hence limiting the control of government over our lives.

[tinydancer]

Simple question really. From a purely philosophical view point why should any legislation require 60% to pass?
I might be able to see it for SCOTUS justices, and if we have to have filibusters (which I oppose too) I guess 60% is as a good bar as any.

But the cornerstone of our democracy is when you elect a legislature, the majority rules.

That means when one party gets 50 percent plus one of the vote, they are the majority.

If they agree on a legislative program, they pass it.

If the majority of the people disagree, then they will vote the majority party out and put the other party in power.

We should all agree with this. It speaks to our sense of fairness.

We may not like what the majority party does but we need to behave as the "loyal opposition," do what we can do to shape public opinion and persuade the majority party to buy into our position.

This seems obvious but unfortunately it doesn't happen for some legislation.

Forget what party currently holds the majority. Not so long ago it was the Republicans.
From a philosophical view point, why 60%?
Why not 50%, plus one?


I can't wait to get back into power.

I can't wait. This is great.

[johnrocks]

I personally think that something so important that affects all of us; like taxes or health care; should need a super majority. Barely half;at most ; supports these massive spending policies so why should the rest of us suffer because of it and be subjected long term to something that may just as easily be unpopular a few months or years from now?

[Nashville]

Simple question really. From a purely philosophical view point why should any legislation require 60% to pass?
I might be able to see it for SCOTUS justices, and if we have to have filibusters (which I oppose too) I guess 60% is as a good bar as any.

But the cornerstone of our democracy is when you elect a legislature, the majority rules.

That means when one party gets 50 percent plus one of the vote, they are the majority.

If they agree on a legislative program, they pass it.

If the majority of the people disagree, then they will vote the majority party out and put the other party in power.

We should all agree with this. It speaks to our sense of fairness.

We may not like what the majority party does but we need to behave as the "loyal opposition," do what we can do to shape public opinion and persuade the majority party to buy into our position.

This seems obvious but unfortunately it doesn't happen for some legislation.

Forget what party currently holds the majority. Not so long ago it was the Republicans.
From a philosophical view point, why 60%?
Why not 50%, plus one?

It doesn't take 60% to pass a bill. It takes 60% for cloture (to end debate, i.e., a fillibuster).

[Lee Kington]

But the cornerstone of our democracy is when you elect a legislature, the majority rules.

That means when one party gets 50 percent plus one of the vote, they are the majority.



Our REPUBLIC prevents the stupidity of a pure democracy (which is always bound to fail).

[dad49er]

I think the reason was to limit the control of one party; hence limiting the control of government over our lives.

We could make candidates garner 60% then, why not?

IMO requiring 60% thwarts the expressed will of the majority of the voters.

[dad49er]

I personally think that something so important that affects all of us; like taxes or health care; should need a super majority. Barely half;at most ; supports these massive spending policies so why should the rest of us suffer because of it and be subjected long term to something that may just as easily be unpopular a few months or years from now?

Simple, because a majority of people put those people into office.
If they do not like what they do they can vote them out.

[johnrocks]

We could make candidates garner 60% then, why not?

IMO requiring 60% thwarts the expressed will of the majority of the voters.

Some say that's why California is in such bad shape, a majority voting in Propositions. Had a super majority been required perhaps they wouldn't be on such shaky ground.:think:

[dad49er]

It doesn't take 60% to pass a bill. It takes 60% for cloture (to end debate, i.e., a fillibuster).

Some bills do.
I oppose filibusters too (by either party).

[johnrocks]

Simple, because a majority of people put those people into office.
If they do not like what they do they can vote them out.

But the plan that 50% plus one will still be in effect. Do you support a simple majority on such things as gay marriage rights? I know I don't.

[dad49er]

Our REPUBLIC prevents the stupidity of a pure democracy (which is always bound to fail).

Always?
Even Reagan?

[dad49er]

But the plan that 50% plus one will still be in effect. Do you support a simple majority on such things as gay marriage rights? I know I don't.

Yes I do.
IMO:
You can't require 50% +1 for things you favor.
And 60% for things you don't.

[johnrocks]

Simple, because a majority of people put those people into office.
If they do not like what they do they can vote them out.

Also, that is why such a super majority was required to amend the Constitution, since that's been circumvented, I strongly support the 60 vote threshold, hell, I with it was three fourths:cool:

[johnrocks]

Yes I do.
IMO:
You can't require 50% +1 for things you favor.
And 60% for things you don't.

Rights should never be subjected to a vote period.

[Charlie A]

Simple question really. From a purely philosophical view point why should any legislation require 60% to pass?
I might be able to see it for SCOTUS justices, and if we have to have filibusters (which I oppose too) I guess 60% is as a good bar as any.

But the cornerstone of our democracy is when you elect a legislature, the majority rules.

That means when one party gets 50 percent plus one of the vote, they are the majority.

If they agree on a legislative program, they pass it.

If the majority of the people disagree, then they will vote the majority party out and put the other party in power.

We should all agree with this. It speaks to our sense of fairness.

We may not like what the majority party does but we need to behave as the "loyal opposition," do what we can do to shape public opinion and persuade the majority party to buy into our position.

This seems obvious but unfortunately it doesn't happen for some legislation.

Forget what party currently holds the majority. Not so long ago it was the Republicans.
From a philosophical view point, why 60%?
Why not 50%, plus one?

We aren't a Democracy. We are a Republic. The cornerstone of our Republic is the Constitution. Obviously the existence of the Senate itself defies the idea that the majority (of the population at large) gets to call the shots.

Do you consider the Conservative opposition to be "disloyal?" Disloyal to the country? Or the President? The term "loyal opposition" is British, and the loyalty there is to the monarch. Interesting choice of words there.

If an elected official believes in his or her heart that a piece of legislation is bad for his or her constituents, or for the country at large, it is the duty of the official to do everything possible to stop it from passing. Are you suggesting that conservative opponents of so-called "healthcare reform" are being unpatriotic? That they are betraying the country?

The filibuster exists so that if a sizable minority are unalterably opposed to legislation, they can stop its passage, at least until enough of them can be peeled off, presumably by getting their amendments added to the markup, so it can override the filibuster. If 59 Republicans were trying to pass legislation ending all federal entitlement programs, would you consider the Democrat with the broken voice, passionately railing against the heartless majority, to be a villain or a hero?

By the way, watch Mr. Smith goes to Washington if you want to see a good one. The filibuster has been greatly watered down. It used to take 67 senators to invoke cloture.

[dad49er]

Also, that is why such a super majority was required to amend the Constitution, since that's been circumvented, I strongly support the 60 vote threshold, hell, I with it was three fourths:cool:

I could probably go along with amending the Constitution, and maybe Supreme Court judges too.

[Nashville]

Some bills do.
I oppose filibusters too (by either party).

I don't agree with you on fillibusters.

My own opinion is that it's not about if a party has the majority in Congress, they should have everything their way. Congress does not always act in the best inerests of the citizens, nor do they even necessarily listen to them. I think it should be hard to pass a bill. Especially a big one or a controversial one.

[johnrocks]

I could probably go along with amending the Constitution, and maybe Supreme Court judges too.

That is the proper way to institute things like health care,imho but that has been circumvented since FDR's time, now it seems that anything is "Constitutional" as long as the majority thinks so.

[dad49er]

Rights should never be subjected to a vote period.

Right to smoke weed?
Right to drive 90 mph?
Right to wack my neighbor over the head when he ticks me off?

A vote was required for;
Women to vote.
Blacks to vote.
Drink alcohol after prohibition.

Those rights would not be present without having a vote.

[dad49er]

We aren't a Democracy. We are a Republic. The cornerstone of our Republic is the Constitution. Obviously the existence of the Senate itself defies the idea that the majority (of the population at large) gets to call the shots.

Do you consider the Conservative opposition to be "disloyal?" Disloyal to the country? Or the President? The term "loyal opposition" is British, and the loyalty there is to the monarch. Interesting choice of words there.

If an elected official believes in his or her heart that a piece of legislation is bad for his or her constituents, or for the country at large, it is the duty of the official to do everything possible to stop it from passing. Are you suggesting that conservative opponents of so-called "healthcare reform" are being unpatriotic? That they are betraying the country?

The filibuster exists so that if a sizable minority are unalterably opposed to legislation, they can stop its passage, at least until enough of them can be peeled off, presumably by getting their amendments added to the markup, so it can override the filibuster. If 59 Republicans were trying to pass legislation ending all federal entitlement programs, would you consider the Democrat with the broken voice, passionately railing against the heartless majority, to be a villain or a hero?

By the way, watch Mr. Smith goes to Washington if you want to see a good one. The filibuster has been greatly watered down. It used to take 67 senators to invoke cloture.

I consider any opposition 'loyal', party, or ideology doesn't matter.
I do not consider those opposed to any health care bill to be unpatriotic.
I just consider 50% +1 to be democratic, and super majorities to be a device to thwart the will of the voters.
As far as Mr. Smith and 67 votes, we have made progress, there is hope.

With the exception of two or three states, no state legislatures require a 2/3's vote.

[ModerateVoice]

We could make candidates garner 60% then, why not?

IMO requiring 60% thwarts the expressed will of the majority of the voters.

Was somebody watching the Bill Mayer clip where he whined about this very thing and health care reform? He stated something to the effect of "to hell with 60%, just ram the bill through."

[DougBH]

As a practical matter. a 60 percent rule keeps laws from jumping back and forth. Suppose one passed a huge government controlled health care law with 51 Senators voting in favor of it. Imagine a trillion dollars being spent to set this up, with everybody in the country being forced into it, and with thousands of bureaucrats hired to run it. Now imagine a shift of two senate seats in the next election. The whole new bureaucracy gets torn down and it is necessary for the private sector to recreate the insurance business. Now, suppose another shift of two seats the other way, in the next election....

[johnrocks]

Right to smoke weed?
Right to drive 90 mph?
Right to wack my neighbor over the head when he ticks me off?

A vote was required for;
Women to vote.
Blacks to vote.
Drink alcohol after prohibition.

Those rights would not be present without having a vote.

I should have the right to smoke pot, I consider that an infringement on my rights.

A road is a PUBLIC endeavor, your rights end where mine begin so to speak.
Wacking isn't a right, that is use of force and a crime.

A Women's right to vote, blacks having rights and alcohol were all enacted by a Constitutional process, not by a simple vote of the Senate.

[JerryN]

Gawd, you guys are all over the place!

You DON'T NEED 60 VOTES! That's only for cloture - to shut off debate (i.e. end a fillibuster).

They don't even need that - it's not in the Constitution - its a Senate rule.
They could even change it - to 63 or 55 and with a simple majority vote to change the rule.
Did you all sleep through Civics class???

[DougBH]

Gawd, you guys are all over the place!

You DON'T NEED 60 VOTES! That's only for cloture - to shut off debate (i.e. end a fillibuster).

They don't even need that - it's not in the Constitution - its a Senate rule.
They could even change it - to 63 or 55 and with a simple majority vote to change the rule.
Did you all sleep through Civics class???

They do need it because it is a Senate rule. I agree the rule could be circumvented or removed, but then it is gone when the tide turns, too. As I stated previously, one side doesn't want to pass a lot of laws only to have them all reversed with the change of a few seats in the next election.

[cadams]

No cloture then no final vote so it's essentially 60 for just about everything. I hated it when the GOP couldn't confirm justices under Bush and I also am against it now, Democrats won, unfortunately that means people will get what they wanted, or thought they wanted.

My one exception is the real fillibuster. Every Senator should be able to be heard and if every GOP member threatens to read a bill start to finish all in a row then they should be able to do so before cloture is called. These procedural fillibusters are stupid.

[ISYairio]

If the legislature must be in session, we are all safer if it is harder for it to suddenly do something.... though admittedly I'd support it being easier to decrease spending compared to increasing it, etc. :P xD

[BillBrown]

I consider any opposition 'loyal', party, or ideology doesn't matter.
I do not consider those opposed to any health care bill to be unpatriotic.
I just consider 50% +1 to be democratic, and super majorities to be a device to thwart the will of the voters.
As far as Mr. Smith and 67 votes, we have made progress, there is hope.

With the exception of two or three states, no state legislatures require a 2/3's vote.

The founders specified super majorities for impeachment and constitutional amendments. They, obviously, were not opposed to them.

The constitution allows congress to make its own parliamentary rules.
The Senate chose to make the filibuster rule, with 60% required for cloture.

[mawst95]

I personally think that something so important that affects all of us; like taxes or health care; should need a super majority. Barely half;at most ; supports these massive spending policies so why should the rest of us suffer because of it and be subjected long term to something that may just as easily be unpopular a few months or years from now?

An argument that you and many hannity.com'ers surely made when Bush and GOP Congress passed trillion dollar tax cuts during a war and deficit funded Medicare Part D using the Reconciliation process.

[Shawna]

But the cornerstone of our democracy is when you elect a legislature, the majority rules.



This is similar to the misconception that we are a democracy.

The founders and subsequent legislators understood the concept of the "tyranny of the majority".

On significant issues, such as healthcare legislation, there is clearly division and lack of consensus when support is less than 60%. The requirement is an effort to encourage compromise and consensus on significant issues that affect the nation as a whole.

Think about it, how can legislation that can only muster 51% be good for the country as a whole?

Supermajority requirements strengthen legislation.

Think of it as the difference between "governing" and "ruling" the people.

[dad49er]

As a practical matter. a 60 percent rule keeps laws from jumping back and forth. Suppose one passed a huge government controlled health care law with 51 Senators voting in favor of it. Imagine a trillion dollars being spent to set this up, with everybody in the country being forced into it, and with thousands of bureaucrats hired to run it. Now imagine a shift of two senate seats in the next election. The whole new bureaucracy gets torn down and it is necessary for the private sector to recreate the insurance business. Now, suppose another shift of two seats the other way, in the next election....

I don't think that type of thing would occur.
Otherwise you would have seen Democrat passed programs dismantled whenever Republicans had the majority.
That hasn't happened.

[dad49er]

The founders specified super majorities for impeachment and constitutional amendments. They, obviously, were not opposed to them.

The constitution allows congress to make its own parliamentary rules.
The Senate chose to make the filibuster rule, with 60% required for cloture.

I'm okay with 60% for constitutional amendments, and impeachments. Probably okay for judges to SCOTUS too.

I am surprised Republicans didn't end the filibuster rule when Democrats were obstructing, and same when Republicans started the obstructionism.
Both are guilty.

Maybe it is a little more complicated than just changing a rule.

[Safiel]

Until the early years of the 20th Century, ONE Senator could successfully filibuster a bill. Debate could only be ended by unanimous consent. In 1917, a cloture rule was adopted requiring 67 Senators. In 1975 it was reduced to 60 Senators.

In a body which is not apportioned by population, even 60 Senators may not necessarily reflect a majority of the population. I would prefer to have seen the requirement remain at 67.

[Safiel]

I'm okay with 60% for constitutional amendments, and impeachments. Probably okay for judges to SCOTUS too.

I am surprised Republicans didn't end the filibuster rule when Democrats were obstructing, and same when Republicans started the obstructionism.
Both are guilty.

Maybe it is a little more complicated than just changing a rule.

Neither party will change the rule because they know at some point the OTHER party will be in the majority.

Just as important, the rule enhances the personal power of each individual Senator, as they have more clout to demand changes to bills.

[grapabeaux]

Demanding simple majorities in Congress: a Democrat tradition since January, 2009.

[dad49er]

Until the early years of the 20th Century, ONE Senator could successfully filibuster a bill. Debate could only be ended by unanimous consent. In 1917, a cloture rule was adopted requiring 67 Senators. In 1975 it was reduced to 60 Senators.

In a body which is not apportioned by population, even 60 Senators may not necessarily reflect a majority of the population. I would prefer to have seen the requirement remain at 67.

Thanks for the history information.

I still favor 50% +1, with a few exceptions.

[dad49er]

Neither party will change the rule because they know at some point the OTHER party will be in the majority.

Just as important, the rule enhances the personal power of each individual Senator, as they have more clout to demand changes to bills.

Good point.
But they did reduce it to 60.

[Safiel]

Good point.
But they did reduce it to 60.

That was done in reaction to Civil Rights Era filibusters. The Democrats used the unusual large super majority they got after Watergate to change the rules. They changed it, in cooperation with Republicans, to break the power of Southern Democratic Senators. Turned out to be unnecessary as most of the old guard Southern Democrats were gone by 1981.

[DougBH]

I don't think that type of thing would occur.
Otherwise you would have seen Democrat passed programs dismantled whenever Republicans had the majority.
That hasn't happened.

That's because they had the filibuster rule.
And that's why the Democrats probably wont end it now.

If one party were convinced that it would have a majority for its dominant ideologies from now on, then we would see an end or modification to the filibuster rule in a minute.

But if they decide this and they are wrong, then woe to everything they passed as soon as the majority goes the other way.

You may remember when Sen. Graham was sort of lambasted by a number of Republicans because he didin't want to do away with the filibuster when it came to the supreme court appointments. The argument of many Republicans was that the filibuster should not apply to S.C. nominations because the constitution said that the Senate was to approve these. Well, my guess is that if the filibuster had been thrown out for the S.C. nominations, a lot of Democrats would now be saying it didn't apply to health care bills.

[dad49er]

That was done in reaction to Civil Rights Era filibusters. The Democrats used the unusual large super majority they got after Watergate to change the rules. They changed it, in cooperation with Republicans, to break the power of Southern Democratic Senators. Turned out to be unnecessary as most of the old guard Southern Democrats were gone by 1981.

Interesting.
Thanks again.

[dad49er]

That's because they had the filibuster rule.
And that's why the Democrats probably wont end it now.

If one party were convinced that it would have a majority for its dominant ideologies from now on, then we would see an end or modification to the filibuster rule in a minute.

But if they decide this and they are wrong, then woe to everything they passed as soon as the majority goes the other way.

You may remember when Sen. Graham was sort of lambasted by a number of Republicans because he didin't want to do away with the filibuster when it came to the supreme court appointments. The argument of many Republicans was that the filibuster should not apply to S.C. nominations because the constitution said that the Senate was to approve these. Well, my guess is that if the filibuster had been thrown out for the S.C. nominations, a lot of Democrats would now be saying it didn't apply to health care bills.

Makes sense.

[WildRose]

Simple question really. From a purely philosophical view point why should any legislation require 60% to pass?
I might be able to see it for SCOTUS justices, and if we have to have filibusters (which I oppose too) I guess 60% is as a good bar as any.

But the cornerstone of our democracy is when you elect a legislature, the majority rules.

That means when one party gets 50 percent plus one of the vote, they are the majority.

If they agree on a legislative program, they pass it.

If the majority of the people disagree, then they will vote the majority party out and put the other party in power.

We should all agree with this. It speaks to our sense of fairness.

We may not like what the majority party does but we need to behave as the "loyal opposition," do what we can do to shape public opinion and persuade the majority party to buy into our position.

This seems obvious but unfortunately it doesn't happen for some legislation.

Forget what party currently holds the majority. Not so long ago it was the Republicans.
From a philosophical view point, why 60%?
Why not 50%, plus one?The cornerstone of our nation is it's constitution, not the rule of simple majorities. If "majority rule" were it, we'd still probably have slavery.

I rarely criticise the founding fathers because they were truly brilliant, far thinkers who wanted the best for this new nation. However they made a few mistakes. Amongst them were the lack of term limits, and the fact that simple majorities are all that are required to actually pass bills.

I wish they had been a little farther sighted and could have seen just how rich this nation would become and what a glaring conflict of interest would arise from that wealth. Had they, and had they done as the framers of the Texas constitution requiring that legislation which raises taxes or spends money requires a 3/5 vote of both houses most of our "special interest groups" would be virtually powerless.

Entities hell bent on subverting our Constitution and Voting processes such as ACORN would have no power because they would never received a dime of federal money.

I personally would support a Constitutional Amendment supporting term limits, and raising the bar for any legislation that would raise taxes or spend money to require a super majority vote. Then we could be much more assured that those in Washington would be actually representing "We the People" instead of their campaign contributors relative to the amount contributed. We would also not see our constitution shredded one line at a time with the speed it is happening at now.

[Safiel]

I would also add that all legislation should have been Constitutionally mandated as having a five year sunset.

[Charlie A]

I consider any opposition 'loyal', party, or ideology doesn't matter.
I do not consider those opposed to any health care bill to be unpatriotic.
I just consider 50% +1 to be democratic, and super majorities to be a device to thwart the will of the voters.
As far as Mr. Smith and 67 votes, we have made progress, there is hope.

With the exception of two or three states, no state legislatures require a 2/3's vote.

The point of Capra's Mr. Smith was that the one man opposing the overwhelming majority WAS RIGHT! Dead right, morally, ethically, legally, and Smith prevailed because he fought so hard that he convinced the other senators to listen, and eventually shamed the senior senator from his state who had been lying to the extent that he attempted to commit suicide outside of the Senate chambers.

[kenpoman]

Yes I do.
IMO:
You can't require 50% +1 for things you favor.
And 60% for things you don't.

what a load.

first, as has already been pointed out, we are NOT a democracy.
we are a republic, and republic operates differently.

supermajorites are required to keep the mob at bay, and to keep
folks like you from making laws and rulings based on a simple majority.

the majority can be, and often is, wrong.

should we put your continuned ability to post here to at simple
yes/no vote? or your ability to own a home? keep a job?

the mob is easily swayed, and you know this.

a supermajority is not.

so why do we require one in some instances?
look to your own posts.

[jawstenn]

That is the proper way to institute things like health care,imho but that has been circumvented since FDR's time, now it seems that anything is "Constitutional" as long as the majority thinks so.

FDR was bad enough........under Woodrow Wilson we got:

1. The income tax
2. The Fed

How about that for a double whammy

[johnrocks]

An argument that you and many hannity.com'ers surely made when Bush and GOP Congress passed trillion dollar tax cuts during a war and deficit funded Medicare Part D using the Reconciliation process.

I love it when posters try to use that idiot's war, Medicart Part "D" and other ignorant ass mistakes against me when trying <in vain I might add> to make an argument.:lol: I was against all that fiscal irresponsibility, you just basically made my argument for me.:cool:

And I'd wager that many Democrats that you may support voted for some;if not all; that **** you mentioned.

[jawstenn]

I consider any opposition 'loyal', party, or ideology doesn't matter.
I do not consider those opposed to any health care bill to be unpatriotic.
I just consider 50% +1 to be democratic, and super majorities to be a device to thwart the will of the voters.
As far as Mr. Smith and 67 votes, we have made progress, there is hope.

With the exception of two or three states, no state legislatures require a 2/3's vote.

The will of the voters should not be thrust upon the will of the people. That is the beauty of representative government.....no such thing as total mob or majority rule.

[Mojotiger]

Something tells me this OP would not have been written 3 years ago.

[johnrocks]

FDR was bad enough........under Woodrow Wilson we got:

1. The income tax
2. The Fed

How about that for a double whammy

Oh yeah, I agree. I've stated many times, I could dig him up just so I could stomp his bones into fine dust, I detest him more than any POTUS.:evil:

[dad49er]

The will of the voters should not be thrust upon the will of the people. That is the beauty of representative government.....no such thing as total mob or majority rule.

Except the voters do have the ultimate hammer.
At the ballot box.

[dad49er]

Something tells me this OP would not have been written 3 years ago.

Wasn't here then, but I do know there where many complaints about Democratic obstructionism during that time. Especially which Bush's judicial nominees.

I live in California, one of two or three states that has a 2/3's requirement for passing budgets. So I have been against that since it's inception during the 1970's.