bostorus (bostorus) wrote,

More Random Politics - 3/5ths Majorities

You know, it is a good thing that the House doesn't require a 3/5ths majority. Controversial legislation that has a 3/5ths majority in the House would be just as twisty and turny as the Senate's. If both chambers requires a 3/5ths majority, there would be no way that Congress would ever be able to reconcile a House version and a Senate version.

Of course, with the way things are now, the Senate version basically has to win in order for the system to work. That seems terribly unfair to the House. There has to be a better way. I would say the Senate should get rid of the need for a 3/5ths majority vote to end debate, but I don't actually believe that, because it is a reasonably valuable way to protect minority rights (as I argued 5 years ago when they were considering getting rid of it WRT judicial appointments).

The only way I can imagine to make it harder to stop passage of bills but also retain minority rights would be to force them to filibuster the bill the old fashioned way, by giving long speeches. I think the Republicans would love this, though. They would have started talking in January and they wouldn't have stopped yet.
Tags: politics

  • How I'm Voting, 2012

    Before the June primary, someone told me that he habitually printed out a copy of my endorsements and took it to the poll with him. With that kind of…

  • How I'm Voting on Tuesday

    For those of you unfamiliar with the California ballot, it's a monstrosity that takes ages to unravel. This is mostly because we have to vote on many…

  • No Public Option

    Hm... The NYT says: [S]enators said the tentative agreement would sideline but not kill the “public option” championed by President Obama and…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.