A Two-thirds Majority Should Be Enough

From "The Oppression of the Supermajority," by Tim Wu, The New York Times, March 5, 2019.

We are told that America is divided and polarized as never before. Yet…the defining political fact of our time is not polarization. It’s the inability of even large bipartisan majorities to get what they want on issues like these. Call it the oppression of the supermajority. Ignoring what most of the country wants…is what is making the public so angry.

Some might counter that the thwarting of the popular will is not necessarily worrisome. …The public, according to this way of thinking, is generally too ill informed to have its economic policy preferences taken seriously.

…Others remind us that the United States is a democratic republic, not a direct democracy, and that the Constitution was designed to modulate the extremes of majority rule. Majorities sometimes want things… they should not be given.

This is true. [But] the invocation of constitutional principle has become an increasingly lame and embarrassing excuse. The framers of the Constitution…were hardly recommending that the will of the majority be ignored.

…It is primarily Congress that prevents popular laws from being passed or getting serious consideration. (Holding an occasional hearing does not count as “doing something.”) Entire categories of public policy options are effectively off-limits because of the combined influence of industry groups and donor interests. …No one attempts to offer…a justification. Instead, legislative stagnation is cynically defended by those who benefit from it with an unconvincing invocation of the rigors of our system of checks and balances.

…Yes, the people can be wrong about things, but so too can experts, embedded industry groups and divisive political factions. It is not a concession to populism, but rather a respect for democracy, to suggest that two-thirds of the population should usually get what they ask for.