Comment by brightball
3 years ago
IMO doing anything at the federal level should require a supermajority anyway. The country shouldn’t swing back and forth due to a simple majority. If a supermajority can’t agree, leave it to states.
We would all be a lot better off.
A party gaining the majority but being unable to functionally govern is awful for democratic legitimacy. Why vote when even if your party wins an election, you don't get your preferred policy implemented, even partially?
And beyond that, it lets party politicians who don't really want to have to take hard votes hide behind the procedural hurdles.
Indeed. That results in the political system being bypassed, and so critical progress in America was made by the judiciary, which doesn't have popular support and is vulnerable to court-stacking and now, it appears, bribery.
There’s already a de facto supermajority requirement in that you need the senate, which represents states, and the house, which represents people.
Also, it turns out that when the legislature doesn’t act, because it was deliberately hobbled by its designers, you end up with an ultra powerful executive rather than things being left to the states.
It would be better if more Americans recognized the flaws in the design of our system of government instead of quasi-worshipping the Founding Fathers and insisting that any problems are because we are unworthy of their great design.
> hobbled by its designers
Minor quibble, but the filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution. And it was most recently modified in 1975.
The legislature was split in two because it was considered the most dangerous branch. Or at least that’s one of the explanations they gave when arguing for its ratification.
That’s a valid point. IMO the executive should have been more limited.