Talk:Supermajority

Created for new editor. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm fairly certain this article is inaccurate; abstentions of Permanent Members do _not_ have the same force and effect as formal votes against; only the latter exercise the veto power. Famously, China has a general pattern of abstention rather than vetoing on issues unrelated to military intervention. Rahul Sinha (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

By this standard, Wiki would have 'gone G.W.Bush' and claimed/held that Iraq had WMD's in the late 1990's early 2000 in the 'History of Iraq' pages and called all dissenters arguments POV and whatnot?? Or perhaps creationism soon will be considered science and evolution if the majority of US wikipedians think so ?? just a (scary) thought. :)
On the topic of majority decisions on interpeting reality it's worth thinking of something Asimov once said (allegedly):
"When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
- Isaac Asimov.John Smith (nom de guerre) 19:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Uhm. Just what's your point, and why are you trying to make it in this talk page? -- Jay Maynard 20:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

He's just trying to get a cheap shot at the United States and its government. Quite childish. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

From the section on US states: "Supermajority requirements for tax increases have been criticized as "deeply flawed" by a report by the progressive Center on Budget and Policy Priorities because such requirements empower a minority of legislators, making it difficult to close tax loopholes or fund transportation infrastructure, and also may encourage pork-barrel spending as a trade-off to ensure passage of a tax increase (see logrolling).[47]"

This appears to be not just illogical, because limits on tax INCREASES cannot logically impact spending. This paragraph appears to have been inserted by the referenced special interest group. 2601:185:8280:2240:31A8:261D:61A:340E (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The edit is being reverted. "majority" means "more than half." A "two thirds majority" then means "two thirds more than half."

J. J. in PA (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Though the new section is true, I'm not sure why it's necessary. There are many different supermajority rules. Do we need to list them all? And isn't it US-centric to only mention it and only give an example of its use in the US? It might be worth mentioning two-thirds majorities, because two thirds is the minimum necessary to insure that three factions won't form a cycle. But I can't think of any reason to mention three-fifths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtSchumann (talk • contribs) 02:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply