Personally I find that no matter how you configure the system, you will find arguments both for and against. One could argue that democracy involves everyone, and everyone agreeing. In that case a supermajority is democratic. If one's take on democracy believes in majority vote, and that small blocks in government shouldn't have the power to stop a majority vote, then a supermajority is very undemocratic. It all depends on ones view of Democracy.
Personally I feel that supermajorities are just inefficient. The founding fathers set them up in order to make change difficult, and in order to ensure that stability and tranquility exist on after an amendment is made. Succession is more likely if you have a larger group going against any amendment. But the problem is how can changes be made when it requires such a large vote making so that most of America must be ready to accept it. It's great for that reason, and it keeps partisan politics from turning into hostilities.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment