Hah, I was going to say that sounded needlessly heavy handed.
Then I checked what the Netherlands does and found that changing the constitution doesn’t merely require you to get a majority, it also requires you to survive at least one election and keep that (super)majority before you can even begin.
That described Dutch system also sounds relatively easy compared to the US model, which requires 2/3 votes in each chamber of Congress (meaning the people-based one and the land-based one), *then* 3/4 of the states (so another land-based check) have to ratify it.
Functionally this means that in the modern political climate, the US Constitution is fully frozen with no hope of amendment really ever again.
> this means that in the modern political climate, the US Constitution is fully frozen
Would note that this is a very modern phenomenon, with Nixon having considered pushing for abolishing the electoral college in the 70s.
Yeah, I wasn’t clear enough. The first vote (before the election) requires a simple majority vote. The second vote (after the election) requires a 2/3 in favor vote in both houses.
I’m not sure if that’s worse than 3/4 states since the Netherlands isn’t so politically localized.
Even that sounds easy compared to my country. In Australia a constitutional change requires a referendum, with a double majority condition to pass. Specifically it requires the vote in over half the states to be in favour, in addition to the overall national vote in favour.