majority rules
it's difficult to pass a budget in california. we require a 2/3rds super majority. there's a proposal to make it a simple majority. the knee jerk reaction is that taxes will go up. hrm. let's do a thought experiment. 5 people want to go to dinner together. if they follow majority rules any 3 of them can pick the restaurant. looking at it another way, it takes 3 to veto. so if two people agree all they have to do is entice one more vote for. one can imagine all kinds of horse trades. for example, the middle guy could vote with the richer guys as long as they pick up the tab. over the long term there will be a distribution of restaurants. okay, now suppose they need a super majority to make a decision ie 4 votes. uh oh. now any pair has veto power. negotiations become a lot more difficult because the simple majority requires support from the minority. the minority is empowered. and believes it's entitled to concessions from the majority. the problem is, there can be multiple minorities. if one minority demands too much, the majority can split. and now all of a sudden the former minority finds itself part of the majority facing a rebellious new minority. and everyone risks going hungry. choosing something simple like where to eat becomes a stupid exercise in brinksmanship. it's a waste of time effort and energy. sheehs. why would we want this shit in government? sheehs.