Supermajority in the context of "Tyranny of the majority"

Play Trivia Questions online!

or

Skip to study material about Supermajority in the context of "Tyranny of the majority"

Ad spacer

⭐ Core Definition: Supermajority

A supermajority is a requirement for a proposal to gain a specified level of support which is greater than the threshold of one-half used for a simple majority, the latter sometimes expressed as a "50%+ 1 vote." Supermajority rules in a democracy can help to prevent a majority from eroding fundamental rights of a minority, but can also hamper efforts to respond to problems and encourage corrupt compromises at times when action is taken. Changes to constitutions, especially those with entrenched clauses, commonly require supermajority support in a legislature. In consensus democracy the supermajority rule is applied in most cases.

↓ Menu

>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<
In this Dossier

Supermajority in the context of Consent of the governed

In political philosophy, consent of the governed is the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is justified and lawful only when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised. This theory of consent is starkly contrasted with the divine right of kings and has often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism. Article 21 of the United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government". Consensus democracy is the application of consensus decision-making and supermajority to democracy.

↑ Return to Menu

Supermajority in the context of Petit juries

In common law, a petit jury (or trial jury; pronounced /ˈpɛtət/ or /pəˈtt/, depending on the jurisdiction) hears the evidence in a trial as presented by both the plaintiff (petitioner) and the defendant (respondent). After hearing the evidence and often jury instructions from the judge, the group retires for deliberation, to consider a verdict. The majority required for a verdict varies. In some cases it must be unanimous, while in other jurisdictions it may be a majority or supermajority. A jury that is unable to come to a verdict is referred to as a hung jury. The size of the jury varies; in criminal cases involving serious felonies there are usually 12 jurors, although Scotland uses 15. A number of countries that are not in the English common law tradition have quasi-juries on which lay judges or jurors and professional judges deliberate together regarding criminal cases. However, the common law trial jury is the most common type of jury system.

In civil cases many trials require fewer than twelve jurors. Juries are almost never used in civil cases outside the United States and Canada. Other states with a common law tradition sometimes use them in defamation cases, in cases involving a governmental eminent domain power, and in cases involving alleged wrongful conviction. Civil law countries generally do not use civil juries. Civil juries are available in the United States and Canada in almost all cases where the only remedy sought is money damages.

↑ Return to Menu

Supermajority in the context of Veto

A veto is a legal power to unilaterally stop an official action. In the most typical case, a president or monarch vetoes a bill to stop it from becoming law. In many countries, veto powers are established in the country's constitution. Veto powers are also found at other levels of government, such as in state, provincial or local government, and in international bodies.

Some vetoes can be overcome, often by a supermajority vote: in the United States, a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate can override a presidential veto. Some vetoes, however, are absolute and cannot be overridden. For example, in the United Nations Security Council, the five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have an absolute veto over any Security Council resolution.

↑ Return to Menu

Supermajority in the context of Consensus democracy

Consensus democracy is the application of consensus decision-making and supermajority to the process of legislation in a democracy. It is characterized by a decision-making structure that involves and takes into account as broad a range of opinions as possible, as opposed to majoritarian democracy systems where minority opinions can potentially be ignored by vote-winning majorities. Constitutions typically require consensus or supermajority.

A consensus government is a national unity government with representation across the whole political spectrum. A concordance democracy is a type of consensus democracy where majority rule does not play a central role. Optional referendums and popular initiatives correspond to consensus democracy.

↑ Return to Menu

Supermajority in the context of Parliamentary sovereignty

Parliamentary sovereignty, also called parliamentary supremacy or legislative supremacy, is a concept in the constitutional law of some parliamentary democracies. It holds that the legislative body has absolute sovereignty and is supreme over all other government institutions, including executive or judicial bodies. It also holds that the legislative body may change or repeal any previous legislation and so it is not bound by written law (in some cases, not even a constitution) or by precedent. Changes to the constitution typically require a supermajority, often two thirds of votes instead of one half.

In some countries, parliamentary sovereignty may be contrasted with separation of powers and constitutionalism, which limits the legislature's scope often to general law-making and makes it subject to external judicial review, where laws passed by the legislature may be declared invalid in certain circumstances.

↑ Return to Menu

Supermajority in the context of Hung jury

A hung jury, also called a deadlocked jury, is a judicial jury that cannot agree upon a verdict after extended deliberation and is unable to reach the required unanimity or supermajority. A hung jury may result in the case being tried again.

This situation can occur only in common law legal systems. Civil law systems either do not use juries at all or provide that the defendant is immediately acquitted if the majority or supermajority required for conviction is not reached during a singular, solemn vote.

↑ Return to Menu

Supermajority in the context of Consultative Assembly of Qatar

The Consultative Assembly (Arabic: مجلس الشورى القطري, romanizedMajlis as-Shura; also known as the Shura Council) is the unicameral legislative body of the State of Qatar. During its first and last elections in 2021, it consisted of 45 members, made up of 30 elected representatives and 15 appointees of the Emir, but as of 2024 it has gone back to all 45 members being directly appointed by the emir. The body can call a vote of no confidence against the appointed Prime Minister, though this requires a two-thirds supermajority, which is also necessary to oppose legislative action carried out by the Prime Minister.

↑ Return to Menu

Supermajority in the context of Article Five of the United States Constitution

Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the procedure for altering the Constitution. Under Article Five, the process to alter the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments, and subsequent ratification.

Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; or by a convention to propose amendments called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must then be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or by ratifying conventions conducted in three-quarters of the states, a process utilized only once thus far in American history with the 1933 ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment. The vote of each state (to either ratify or reject a proposed amendment) carries equal weight, regardless of a state's population or length of time in the Union. Article Five is silent regarding deadlines for the ratification of proposed amendments, but most amendments proposed since 1917 have included a deadline for ratification. Legal scholars generally agree that the amending process of Article Five can itself be amended by the procedures laid out in Article Five, but there is some disagreement over whether Article Five is the exclusive means of amending the Constitution.

↑ Return to Menu

Supermajority in the context of Entrenched clause

An entrenched clause or entrenchment clause of a constitution is a provision that makes certain amendments either more difficult or impossible to pass. Overriding an entrenched clause may require a supermajority, a referendum, or the consent of the minority party. The term eternity clause is used in a similar manner in the constitutions of Brazil, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, India, Iran, Italy, Morocco, Norway, and Turkey, but specifically applies to an entrenched clause that can never be overridden. However, if a constitution provides for a mechanism of its own abolition or replacement, like the German Basic Law does in Article 146, this by necessity provides a "back door" for getting rid of the "eternity clause", too.

Any amendment to a constitution that would not satisfy the prerequisites enshrined in a valid entrenched clause would lead to so-called "unconstitutional constitutional law"—that is, an amendment to constitutional law text that appears constitutional by its form, albeit unconstitutional due to the procedure used to enact it or due to the content of its provisions.

↑ Return to Menu