History
Why Constitutional Amendments Require Supermajorities
Quick fact
In the United States, a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of states—a supermajority bar far higher than the simple majority used for ordinary legislation.
Why this is interesting
You know that to pass a law, you usually need just 50% plus one vote. But to change the Constitution, you need far more. Why the difference?
Read the full explanation
Understanding Why Constitutional Amendments Require Supermajorities
Most decisions in democratic institutions are made by simple majority: if more than half the voters agree, the measure passes. But constitutional amendments are different. They are so important that they demand a 'supermajority'—a much larger proportion, such as two-thirds or three-fourths. Think of a simple majority as a scale that tips with just over half the weight. A supermajority is like needing the scale to sink with an almost full load of all possible weights. This extra requirement ensures that a change to the fundamental rules of a country is not made by a slim, possibly temporary, majority. Instead, it requires broad agreement across political divides. The process often involves multiple steps—like passing through the legislature and then being approved by states or provinces—each step adding to the difficulty. This design is not accidental; it is a deliberate choice to make fundamental change slower and more deliberate.
A deeper explanation
Why do constitutions require supermajorities? The core reason is to create a distinction between ordinary laws and fundamental law. Ordinary laws can be changed easily because they reflect the current preferences of the majority. But a constitution is meant to be more stable, providing a framework that protects rights and structures government over time. If a constitution could be changed by a bare majority, then any majority could rewrite the rules to entrench its power or strip rights from minorities. Supermajority requirements are an 'entrenchment' mechanism—they lock in certain provisions against fleeting majorities. The mechanism works by raising the cost of change: the more votes needed, the less likely change is, and therefore the more 'sticky' the constitution is. This stability is valuable because it ensures predictable rules and protects minority groups. However, the same stickiness can become a problem: if the public overwhelmingly supports an amendment, but a well-organized minority blocks it, the supermajority rule can frustrate democratic will. Additionally, supermajorities can make it impossible to fix outdated or unjust clauses. For example, the U.S. Constitution still includes the Three-Fifths Compromise (a relic of slavery) because abolition came through Amendment, and later changes to remove the explicit language did not occur until after the Civil War—yet even that change required huge consensus. The effect is a trade-off: supermajorities secure stability but can make reform slow and sometimes impossible.