An interesting passage from Andrew Greeley's The Making of the Popes 1978:
But one thing can be said with confidence — the winner will be a compromise candidate. The fact is built into one critically important mechanism of the election: the two-thirds-plus-one majority required to elect.
Those of us with either memory or history of American politics can recall that until 1940 the Democratic party needed a two-thirds majority to nominate a president, and hence had long and dramatic conventions, including the famous 103 ballots in 1924. The reason for that rule was simple — the Democrats were a disparate coalition which had to keep all its major components happy to win an election. Indeed, the Democrats only began to lose the South in presidential elections when they dropped the two-thirds rule.
Posted by Ben Brumfield at April 6, 2005 06:53 AMWouldn't the two-thirds rule - generally, anyway - ensure the conservation nature of an institution?
Posted by: Bobby Farouk at April 6, 2005 08:02 AMI would think so, which is probably the goal in either a conclave or supreme court appointment. It can also result in weak nominees, however, since the blandest candidate may be the only one palatable to all parties.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at April 6, 2005 08:08 AM