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

"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?" The amount of people who choose to vote is irrelevant here. Obviously it would be better if more people choose to vote but that is another totally different conversation, you have to make decisions with the sample of the population you have. "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." The reason why there are relatively few amendments to the U.S. constitution (yes this is a massive oversimplification) is because so little bipartisan cooperation. Most bills are not passed and those that are passed are usually passed on party lines [1] [2] the amount of bills would dramatically decrease even if those which were passed did have more popular support. Even if bipartisan cooperation increased I doubt that anything like the number of bills which are passed with today's system would be. "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." The US is a republic, unless a bill goes against the constitution the majority gets to decide and the minority should not have a veto. "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." I saw a similar point of view which isn't really espoused anywhere else and was instantly sceptical of the origins of this idea. If you are genuine then I have no problem with the claims and most of the second half of my first argument no longer matters. I apologize if I caused any offense. When I saw this debate I saw exactly what you so harshly deny "a Republican who is merely trying to hold onto a way of life" but if you are not as you say I must assume that you are genuine and not simply hoodwinked by propaganda (like the last guy I debated this with). "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?" Of course businesses make decisions based politics, my response would be what do we value most, economic prosperity or a fully democratic system. My problem with the proposed system is that it makes it much more difficult to pass bills, you claim that it would increase cooperation but I don't see why this would happen. The primaries already make it impossible for any moderate to get through (at least to a degree). At least for the moment the democrats and republicans will continue to each hold round half of the representatives making it as I said very difficult to pass bills. It also has the issue of biasing the blocking of new laws and maintaining the status quo. I already alluded to this previously but I will rehash more in depth. A new bill will struggle to be passed but and old law will struggle to be overturned this means that things will remain as they are for much longer and newer ideas will take longer to be considered. Also I personally don't like the idea that a minority could veto a bill, it seems that we should seek to have majority rule. Again I apologize for confusing your motive and the source of your idea. [1] http://www.policymic.com... [2] http://www.rose-hulman.edu... (see Legislative Process)