zlacker

"That would at least require some amount of bipartisan consensus, and therefore some amount of actually somewhat reasonable debate..."

What you would get would be a lot of back-room deals and strange bedfellows. Like now, only more so.

>>mcguir+(OP)
I'm not so sure. The back-room deals that go on now are not about getting the other side to vote for things they really don't want to vote for, as much as horse trading on which bills come up for a vote vs. getting stuck in committee or tabled. It would be harder for either side to get any value out of that if a 2/3 majority was required to pass a bill--back-room deals can't get that many votes to switch in the opposition party about something that's really contentious.

That's not to say that any bill that gets enough bipartisan consensus to pass a 2/3 vote must be good; plenty of bills that have passed in the past with that much consensus have been bad. But I think it might change the dynamics in at least something like the right direction.

>>pdonis+y2
That's because the tools in place to override a tabling are the 2/3 vote tools.

Make everything 2/3 vote and you increase the need for the dealings that override the current 2/3 vote tools.

>>shadow+In2
Which tools are you talking about?

>>pdonis+gt2
Bills can be forced out of committee to the floor via a discharge petition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_petition), but it requires a 2/3 vote.