Simple Majority vs Supermajority Costs

In this opinion article, the columnist is arguing for simple majority to rule in Congress for all decisions. He argues that many bills have not been passed even though the bills have had 51 supporters in the Senate and the Democrats will not get everything they want because their majority is too slim to get over the supermajority requirements, especially that associated with filibusters. He argues that simple majority should be the law of the land so as to be able to pass more laws that represent the beliefs of the majority.

However, this columnist is only looking at the decision-making costs and ignoring the external costs that Buchanan and Tullock present in The Calculus of Consent, Chapter 6. While reducing the requirement to simple majority may decrease decision-making costs in Congress as they would be able to pass more bills quicker, it will likely increase external costs. It would not be optimal to let Congress operate at a simple majority for issues that relate to individuals’ rights, freedoms, or overall welfare because the individuals' external costs will be much greater as it will have a greater impact on their daily lives. A simple majority would represent more than half of U.S. citizens, but a supermajority represents more people, and reduces the external costs associated with the vote because more people's interests are accounted for in the vote. As Buchanan and Tullock argue, there is an optimal Na that minimizes an individual’s costs. And so while this columnist makes a valid argument about the high decision-making costs associated with a supermajority, he does not address the high external costs associated with a simple majority. He only addresses the issues associated with supermajority but fails to address the drawbacks of a simple majority. He does not realize that the supermajority that Congress currently operates at might actually be the optimal Na. Therefore, it would be an inefficient move to switch to simple majority if the supermajority was Na as a move would be associated with increased costs for individual i.