Absurdity of 'supermajority'

It amazes me that apparently few seem to realize why it is so difficult to pass a budget in this fine state of ours. It's the ridiculous "supermajority" requirement.

"Supermajorities" are constitutional, of course, and they were even specifically included in the constitution for things like overriding a veto or impeaching a president, things that you do not want to happen with any frequency. It's the height of absurdity to require it for something as important and necessary and complicated as a budget. This is something that we want to happen, right?

Think about how difficult it is to get to a simple majority in an election or to pass a statewide proposal. It's hard to do. It can be very hard to achieve a simple majority of 50 percent plus one. California mandates a two-thirds majority, an inanity considering that in an election 60 percent is considered a landslide.

When we pass a budget in this state, getting a majority to agree is barely the beginning of the negotiation process because now the real majority has to make concessions to the minority in order to achieve the so called "supermajority." It sounds insane even writing about it. The political cross currents must be tremendous. How can anybody do this? Obviously this is why the only years we can pass a budget on time is when we have a significant surplus, and therefore all parties can get what they want.

The "supermajority" is an obvious misnomer. They should really call it the "impotent majority" because that's exactly what it is. The true majority has no power to pass the budget without concessions to the minority. That's impotent, not super.

Republicans like to say that without the "impotent majority" the Democrats would run amuck and raise taxes through the roof. Who knows if this is true or not, but at least it would be the will of the majority and not some screwedup compromise. California is one of only three states (the others being Arkansas and Rhode Island) that require a supermajority legislative vote for passage of a budget.

Sometimes I wonder if there might be an ironic payback for this gross distortion of democracy. Successful democracies work because they achieve balance. The "impotent majority" causes an inherent imbalance that results in the majority of state representatives and the citizens they represent not getting what they want. In a closed system, which our political system might arguably be called, this would result in a balancing distortion of another kind.

I wonder if the "supermajority" is one reason why the Republican Party in California is chronically imbedded as the minority party. Consider for a moment that that might in fact be true. I have one question. Is it worth it? Tony DeSena Calabasas