Democracy Doesn’t Mean Two-Thirds-Rule

Yglesias has some thoughts about whatever the hell is wrong with California this time.  This bit stuck out for me:

The 2/3ds rule in the state legislation doesn’t make sense, the profligate use of the initiative process doesn’t work, the combination of the two is disastrous.

I don’t live in California, and I don’t know enough about the state’s politics to really say anything beyond the obvious observation that government services cost money, and if you want them, you have to pay for them.  Also, the 2/3rds rule gets one of my pet hobby-horses rocking:

Supermajority requirements are undemocratic, and they’re bad for democracy pretty much wherever we use them.  Nothing gets done, the will of the majority is frustrated, and voters grow dispirited and disgusted.  Which is precisely why we shouldn’t allow the Senate (an already absurdly undemocratic body) to behave as if the procedural rules around the filibuster are the same as a constitutional requirement for a 60 votes to pass legislation.

2 Responses to “Democracy Doesn’t Mean Two-Thirds-Rule”


  1. 1 zombie rotten mcdonald

    One of Harry Reids most ignominious legacies.

  2. 2 Kevin Baker

    He’s such a sad, sorry sack of worthless.

Comments are currently closed.