Stephane Rouillon said: > I do not like super-majorities because the limit is artificial: > 55%, 60%, 66%, 75% > it leads toward changing the rule to win... > > I prefer two consecutive majority votes with an election between them. > This is how fundamental laws are changed for any assembly or union in > Quebec.
That's a reasonable proposal. I still have some qualms about raw majoritarianism, but for many situations I can see how it's a reasonable arrangement. We have something akin to that for Congressional pay raises: No pay raise takes effect until we've had a new election. This is the 27th amendment to the Constitution. Interesting aside on the 27th: It was proposed more than 200 years ago, and from time to time a state would ratify it, but it didn't cross the 3/4 threshold until 1991 or 1992. The people in DC had to huddle and consult some experts before confirming that it was in fact legitimate and legal (mainly I guess they needed to confirm ratifications that took place in various states more than a century ago, just to be sure these ratifications weren't apocryphal). Anyway, a question: I've heard that Canada's Parliament is bicameral. Does the second chamber have any real power? How is it elected? Alex ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info