Hacker News Reader

Comment by rdmsr | Hacker News Reader

All you need for constitutional reform is a 50% majority on a referendum. That seems way too easy.

Same saga with Brexit. 52% condemned the rest and the generations to come to political insanity.

Totally agree. Constitutional changes should be difficult by design.

A timely warning to the US, too - as more and more Senate votes are being decided by 50% majority rather than their traditional 2/3 (EDIT: sorry, 3/5). That both parties indulge in it should be worrying to everyone.

The US should worry more about the electoral college finally breaking down and allowing the minority to control the presidency. Should worry more about gerrymandering too.

With Senate, the simple 50% majority is by design. That's consistent with most other bicameral parliaments out there, which also vote on a simple majority basis. Since the issues they can vote on are restricted by the Constitution, it's not really a big deal. The big deal is amending the Constitution itself, which is extremely difficult (if anything, probably more difficult than it should be).

Additionally, the Senate gives minority population states a vastly outsized vote. North Dakota and California get equal say. 50 Senators do not come close to representing 50% of the US population.

> Since the issues they can vote on are restricted by the Constitution, it's not really a big deal.

I don't agree. The U.S. Senate is very powerful; those restrictions aren't very broad.

> the simple 50% majority is by design

It depends what you mean. The filibuster, which requires 60% majority, has been part of the Senate since around the 1840s; clearly many generations of Senators thought it was important and intended that it continue.

Yeah, but the republicans do what they want. Many probably thought the whole actually voting on supreme court nominees should continue.

The filibuster was always removable by a simple majority, though, so it was a self-applied restriction, not an external one. Which limited its efficiency greatly - anyone relying on filibuster knew that if they pushed too hard, it would go away.

> The filibuster was ...

It is ... it's still there, just not for confirmations of appointments by the executive branch.

It was 3/5, not 2/3, to break a filibuster, and the use of filibusters had been getting to unprecedented levels. The argument above was that constitutional change should be hard I.e. require a supermajority. The Senate rules as followed recently have been requiring a supermajority for ANY change. That is unhealthy.

> It was 3/5, not 2/3, to break a filibuster

It still is. Filibusters have been banned only for confirmations of appointments by the President.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com