Once a bill is voted on in the Senate, a simple majority of 51 votes is required to pass at the end of debate. But there`s a catch: before a vote can take place, it actually takes 60 votes to interrupt the debate, which is why a qualified majority of 60 votes is now considered the de facto minimum to pass a law in the Senate. The Senate could also weaken filibuster without eliminating it completely. A majority in the Senate could detonate a „mini-nuclear bomb” that prohibits obstruction on some motions but otherwise leaves the 60-vote rule intact. For example, a majority in the Senate could prevent senators from obstructing a motion used to invoke a bill (called a motion to prosecute). This would preserve the right of senators to obstruct the current bill or amendment, but would remove the qualified majority barrier that prevents debate on legislative action. The Senate`s tradition of unlimited debate has allowed for the use of filibuster, a loosely defined term for actions aimed at prolonging debate and delaying or preventing a vote on a bill, resolution, amendment or other contentious matter. Prior to 1917, there was no way in the Rules of the Senate to shut down debate and force a vote on a bill. This year, the Senate passed a rule that allowed a two-thirds majority to stop a filibuster, a procedure known as „closure.” In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for closure from two-thirds of voting senators to three-fifths of all duly elected and sworn senators, or 60 of the 100 members of the Senate. The first known application of a supermajority rule dates back to the 100s BC. In ancient Rome.

[1] [How?] In this voting basis, a qualified majority could be set, for example a vote of „two-thirds of the total membership”. For example, in February 2007, the Italian government fell after losing one vote in the Italian Senate by 158 votes to 136 (with 24 abstentions). The government needed an absolute majority in the 318-member chamber, but fell short of the required 160 by two votes when two of its own supporters abstained. [18] In the United States Electoral College, an absolute majority of electoral votes is required to elect the President and Vice President of the United States. Ultimately, the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act was repealed by the Dissolution and Convening of Parliament Act, 2022, removing any majority requirement and restoring the previous Royal Prerogative to dissolve the House of Commons at any time during its 5-year term. A two-thirds majority in the Senate is 67 senators out of 100, while a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives is 290 out of 435 members. However, since many votes take place without all seats in the House of Representatives being filled and deputies participating, it is not often necessary to have 67 senators or 290 representatives to obtain this supermajority. In most states, however, election initiatives proposing constitutional amendments are not subject to the same majority requirement as votes proposed by the state legislature.

Some jurists wonder why supermajorities are required of the legislature but not of the people. They argue that the voting initiative process lacks the controls found in the legislature that encourage compromise and consensus, and suggest that a majority requirement could help prevent the passage of initiatives supported by only a small majority. The 14th Amendment (Section 3) excludes a person from federal or state office if, having previously taken an oath to uphold the Constitution as a federal or state official, „participated in an insurrection or rebellion against it, or aided or abetted its enemies.” However, the House of Representatives and the Senate can override this restriction together by a two-thirds majority. Therefore, on many matters in the Senate, debate can only be interrupted if at least 60 senators support it. (However, this is not universally true, and we`ll see some consistent counterexamples below.) While Senate rules still require only a simple majority to pass a bill, several procedural steps along the way require a 60-vote supermajority to end debate on bills. Article 368 of the Constitution of India requires a qualified majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting in each House of the Indian Parliament, subject to at least a majority of the total number of members of each House of Parliament, to amend the Constitution. Moreover, in matters involving States and the judiciary, at least more than half of the States must ratify the amendment. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison criticize the majority requirements. In Federalist 22, Hamilton wrote that while such demands prevent the passage of harmful laws, they also prevent the passage of useful laws, and „their real job is to embarrass the government, destroy the energy of the government, and replace the pleasure, arbitrariness, or artifice of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto with the deliberations and regular decisions of a respectable majority. Hamilton also wrote that such a requirement would encourage „despicable compromises of the public good.” [5] In Federalist 58, Madison wrote that the demands of the supermajority could help prevent the adoption of „hasty and partial measures,” but „in all cases where justice or the common good might require the adoption of new laws or active measures, the basic principle of free government would be reversed.

It would no longer be the majority that would govern; Power would be transferred to the minority. Madison also wrote that such demands would encourage secession. [6] In 1997, the qualified majority requirement was challenged in court by supporters of an election initiative in Wyoming that won a simple majority but did not meet the qualified majority requirement. During the 1996 general election in Wyoming, there was a voting initiative calling for the adoption of an amendment to the United States Constitution establishing term limits for members of the United States Congress. Similar to the voting base for all members, a qualified majority could be established for this basis, for example a vote of „two-thirds of the fixed members”. The majority of fixed members is based on the total number of permanent permanent members of the Consultative Assembly. [14] It is only used when a certain number of seats or memberships are specified in the rules of the organization. The majority of permanent members would be different from the majority of all members if there are vacancies. [14] This amendment inadvertently gave senators the right to debate indefinitely, meaning they could delay a bill indefinitely without the support of a qualified majority ever coming to a vote. This tactic is what we now call buccaneers. The UN Security Council requires a qualified majority of permanent members on matters of substance (procedural matters require a simple majority of those present and voting).

According to Article 27 of the Charter of the United Nations, at least nine of the 15 members of the Security Council (a three-fifths majority) must vote in favour of a draft resolution in order to adopt it. The indication of fixed membership means that abstentions are counted as votes against – absences are not normal, but would be treated in the same way. For U.S. state legislators, Mason`s Manual states: „An advisory body may not, by its own law or rule, require a two-thirds majority to take action when the Constitution or the supervisory authority requires only a majority of votes. For example, requiring a two-thirds majority to act would be tantamount to giving more than one-third of the members the power to oppose the action and would be tantamount to delegating the powers of the body to a minority. [40] Some states require a qualified majority to adopt a constitutional amendment or legislative initiative. [41] Another type of supermajority is three-fifths (60 percent). This requirement could also be qualified to include all members or persons present. The current impasse on some issues has led to the use of budget voting rules to circumvent procedural hurdles in the House. To expedite Congress` budget process, reconciliation bills can pass as few as 51 votes, compared to the de facto 60-vote requirement imposed by the filibuster. However, the budget voting process is limited in scope, and analysts argue that it was not designed for the full scale of legislation that characterizes its current use. Related concepts regarding alternatives to first-past-the-post voting include a majority of all members and a majority of fixed members.