On supermajorities

Post Reply
Tony.Williams
Posts: 1317
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 8:05 am
Location: Still somewhere in England
Contact:

On supermajorities

Post by Tony.Williams »

Given the present political mess we are in, there is some talk of reforming our political system to put it on a more rational basis. There has also been much discussion about the clash between direct and representative democracy (decision by referendum vs decision by parliament) which is a significant cause of our present political paralysis. One issue within all of this is whether decisions should always be made by a simple majority of those voting, or whether major constitutional change should require a supermajority.

To give an example of how a supermajority works: Robert's Rules of Order is "the most widely used manual of parliamentary procedure in the United States. It governs the meetings of a diverse range of organizations—including church groups, county commissions, homeowners associations, nonprofit associations, professional societies, school boards, and trade unions—that have adopted it as their parliamentary authority." It has the following to say about voting:
As a compromise between the rights of the individual and the rights of the assembly, the principle has been established that a two-thirds vote is required to adopt any motion that: (a) suspends or modifies a rule of order previously adopted; (b) prevents the introduction of a question for consideration; (c) closes, limits, or extends the limits of debate; (d) closes nominations or the polls, or otherwise limits the freedom of nominating or voting; or (e) takes away membership.
When it comes to national referendums concerning constitutional change, a 67% majority is often used, but 60% is also common. Another way of approaching the issue is to add a requirement for a certain participation rate e.g. at least 50% of the electorate must cast their votes for the result to be valid.

I am in favour of the supermajority requirement for constitutional change, since that supports politically stability. At present, there is nothing to stop UK governments from holding a referendum on constitutional change every time there is a change of government. It seems reasonable to be absolutely certain that an overwhelming majority of the electorate supports a major change, before implementing it.

However, supermajorities as usually applied have an uncomfortably arbitrary aspect to them: the size of the majority required. Should it be 60%, or 67%, or something else? What logical justification is there for choosing one number rather than another?

My preference is for a referendum proposal to require an absolute majority of the electorate to pass: in other words, more than 50% of eligible voters. This has the merit of requiring a supermajority and simultaneously dealing with the participation rate issue. The justification would be that the simple majority principle would be retained, so there is no arbitrary figure to be selected. And if people fail to vote, it is reasonable to suppose that they don't care enough to turn out, which in itself indicates a lack of enthusiasm for change.

How would this have played out in the 2017 Brexit referendum? There was at that time an electorate of 46.5 million, of which 17.4 million voted to leave, 16.1 million to remain, and 13 million did not vote (a turnout of 72%). If an absolute majority had been required to leave, this would have needed just over 23.25 million votes. Assuming that the turnout remained at 72% (33.5 million votes cast), this would have meant that 69% of those voting would have to have voted to leave for this to take effect.

Comments?
chaggle
Posts: 2801
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 10:01 am

Re: On supermajorities

Post by chaggle »

Makes a lot of sense.

This was done in the two Scottish devolution referendums - the threshold set being 40% of the electorate for some reason.

The first in 1979 resulted in 32.9% for devolution so failed, the second in 1997 44.87% so devolution was passed.

However for us...

Image
Don't blame me - I voted remain :con
Post Reply