[int_19h]

With Senate, the simple 50% majority is by design. That's consistent with most other bicameral parliaments out there, which also vote on a simple majority basis. Since the issues they can vote on are restricted by the Constitution, it's not really a big deal. The big deal is amending the Constitution itself, which is extremely difficult (if anything, probably more difficult than it should be).

[gdudeman]

Additionally, the Senate gives minority population states a vastly outsized vote. North Dakota and California get equal say. 50 Senators do not come close to representing 50% of the US population.

[hackuser]

> Since the issues they can vote on are restricted by the Constitution, it's not really a big deal.

I don't agree. The U.S. Senate is very powerful; those restrictions aren't very broad.

> the simple 50% majority is by design

It depends what you mean. The filibuster, which requires 60% majority, has been part of the Senate since around the 1840s; clearly many generations of Senators thought it was important and intended that it continue.

[int_19h]

The filibuster was always removable by a simple majority, though, so it was a self-applied restriction, not an external one. Which limited its efficiency greatly - anyone relying on filibuster knew that if they pushed too hard, it would go away.

[hackuser]

> The filibuster was ...

It is ... it's still there, just not for confirmations of appointments by the executive branch.

[aanm1988]

Yeah, but the republicans do what they want. Many probably thought the whole actually voting on supreme court nominees should continue.