Every law that is passed by congress should require a 2/3 vote.

"It doesn't give a more accurate representation of what society wants, it gives a less accurate representation of what society wants" There are over 225 million Americans who are able to vote. During the 2012 presidential election there was a voter turnout of approximately 120 million Americans. This is simply an example indicating many people in the United States did not vote. As a matter in fact approximately 1/3 of the U.S. Population did not vote. That being said, is it fair to say that a 49 to 51 vote is truly an accurate representation of the United States population? "And you would rather dial down democracy?" The foundation of our democracy is founded on the U.S. Constitution. A 2/3 vote is required for all amendments to the Constitution. Where do you see a problem with my argument? Democracy would not be dialed down at all, I believe it would be enhanced. When a 2/3 vote is required, Republicans would have to work with democrats for a common ground. I want to bring up a point. Don't forget that Senators and Representatives act in the best interest of their own States and Districts. If a single party barely skips a vote through congress by a couple votes, what about the the other 49%. A 2/3 vote would actually represent an overwhelming majority of the United States, and under that premise should a law be passed. "No, radicalization along party lines would still be a problem, this would lead to no bills being passed." You should not claim "no bills would be passed", as that is not a true statement.. There are plenty of laws that pass with over a 2/3 vote. "Seriously? We shouldn't do what society wants because society wants it?" Actually, it appears to be what politicians want. Society merely elected them into office, the final decision is that of a small group of people who ran for office under the notion that they will vote a certain way. Yes, people voted them into office, but they are the ones that vote for the laws. You cannot deny that here is no corruption in congress. "This is about the maintenance of the status quo and the suppression of the liberal ideology, this is the poisonous idea that what we have is the best it will ever get." Can you elaborate on this? How would a 2/3 vote impact progress In any way? If republicans take control of congress again, they can decide to defund the Affordable Healthcare Act with a majority vote. In what way would you consider that progress? Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent implementing a law that can be overturned with a majority vote? Where does that make sense, please explain? As you may have noticed, current policies are very liberal, how is this an attempt to suppress liberal ideology? This would actually make it harder to change laws that have been passed by liberals. "I don't know where you got this idea from but I am willing to guess it originated from Fox News, republicans will soon be little more than a third of the Voters in the United States" Why would you presume that I obtained this point of view from Fox News? Also, why would I be threatened if Republicans will soon make be little more than a third of the voters. Let's keep the debate professional, you don't even know my political preference. I am merely presenting a voting method that mirrors that of the U.s. Constitution. You still have not presented any grounds as to why a 2/3 vote is a bad idea. It gives business owners more confidence and drastically removes uncertainty in the markets. Are you willing to claim that businesses don't base some of their decisions on political battles? Also with a 2/3 vote congress won't have to spend a majority of its time repealing the previous arrives laws. A lot of tax payer dollars are losses through the repeals of laws. The method I propose would reduce the number of repeals. According to ThinkProgress.com, "Last year CBS calculated that the number of hours spent on 33 repeal votes (80 work hours, or two full work weeks) cost taxpayers an estimated $48 million in taxpayer dollars." True progress is seen when there are not constant changes of ideologies from one party to another. Ia 2/3 vote will create that stabilization as common grounds will need to be reached on every decision. Please let's keep this professional please, and quit assuming that I am a Republican who is merely trying to hold onto a way of life. I am not a Republican. I was actually hoping I would debate a Republican. I would just like to hear a sound defense.