America is stuck in a self-defeating game of political ping-pong: each side scrapes together 50%+1, pushes through sweeping change, and then watches the other side tear it down. The result is trillions in wasted effort, decades of policy whiplash, and a country that grows more divided, not more free. It's time for a different strategy: deliberately building the supermajorities needed for lasting change.
The Supermajority Alternative
History's most effective political movements understood that transformational change requires overwhelming force, not bare-knuckle tactics.
Franklin Roosevelt didn't just win the presidency in 1932—he built a coalition that controlled 75% of Congress during the New Deal's peak. This wasn't political excess; it was strategic necessity. Major reforms like Social Security required the political space to experiment, adjust, and weather opposition attacks.
Lyndon Johnson's Great Society emerged from similar supermajority strength.
The Permanence Problem
Even the most "permanent" reforms have a half-life once consensus fades. Social Security faces erosion as politicians who spent its dedicated funds now want to reframe it as an "entitlement" rather than the social insurance program it was designed to be. The Voting Rights Act went from near-universal support in 1965—passed with 80% of the Senate and 82% of the House—to major provisions struck down less than 50 years later because some now see voting rights protections as an impediment to winning their narrow victories.
The Obamacare Warning
The ACA squeaked through with party-line votes despite deep public division. Democrats paid for it with the worst midterm losses in modern history, and Republicans failed just as spectacularly when they tried to repeal it. Fifteen years later, it's still stuck at 54% approval. A 70% starting point—like banning pre-existing condition discrimination—would have locked in progress and avoided the political bloodbath.
What Currently Actually Polls at 70%+ (National Level)
The challenge isn't theoretical—it's practical. You have to find out what policies can actually get you to 70%, not just theorize about supermajorities. These examples are from national polling, but the same 70% principle applies at state and local levels where different policies will reach supermajority support depending on the community:
Americans agree overwhelmingly on building hard infrastructure—83% back roads and bridges, 84% support water projects—and on tightening technology rules, with 80% favoring data privacy protections and 81% backing breach notifications. They want economic security through programs like Medicaid (84% say it's crucial) and expanded child tax credits (72% support), along with fiscal responsibility through reduced budget deficits (75% support) and better trade balance (78% support). On law enforcement, the consensus is clear: 94% support preventing felons from owning guns and 75% support deporting criminals.
The focus should be on concrete problems people experience daily rather than abstract ideological battles. Meanwhile, many policies that dominate political discourse fall short of supermajority support at the national level. Abortion rights poll at 63%, assault weapons bans at 57%, and 49% think politicians shouldn't focus on transgender issues at all. These issues that can't reach 70% nationally need to be settled at state or local levels where communities can find their own consensus.
But even with 70% policies, where and how you implement them matters.
The Federalism Constraint (National Context)
At the national level, there's another crucial constraint: the Federalism Discount. Only 22% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the federal government, while Americans are consistently more confident in state and local government. This creates a "federalism tax" on any policy requiring federal implementation.
Take gun safety measures: background checks poll at around 75% when framed as a state policy, but drop to 65% when federal implementation is mentioned. The same pattern holds across issues—even popular policies lose 5-10% support when federal implementation is mentioned, unless they're clearly within federal jurisdiction.
What this means in practice:
70% Territory (when framed as state/local implementation):
Gun safety measures (background checks, red flag laws)
Education content decisions
Healthcare regulations
Social policies
75% Territory (clearly federal role):
Tech/data privacy protections
Border security/immigration enforcement
Infrastructure spending
National defense
Interstate commerce issues
A city council in Vermont might find different policies that reach 70% than one in Texas, but the fundamental approach of building sustainable consensus rather than pursuing narrow victories applies at every level of government.
The Courts and Justice Department Trap
The parties in power need to resist using the courts and Justice Department to override issues that don't meet supermajority support. Abortion is a prime example. When politicians can't build 70% consensus, they're tempted to use unelected institutions to impose their preferred policies. When you can't win hearts, you try to win gavels.
This politicizes court selection because it transforms judicial appointments into a form of unelected lawmaking. The result is a vicious cycle: each side packs courts with ideological allies, eroding public trust in judicial independence and turning Supreme Court nominations into partisan warfare.
True 70% politics means accepting that some issues belong at the state level where different communities can reach their own consensus, rather than using federal courts to impose nationwide solutions that lack democratic legitimacy.
The Bottom Line
Supermajority politics isn't just a smarter electoral strategy—it's the only way to make reforms last. If you wouldn't want to live under your opponent's 50%+1 rule, don't govern that way yourself. Build the kind of coalitions that most Americans—not just your half—would gladly live under.
Lasting progress doesn't come from winning harder—it comes from winning wider. If we can't build a country 70% of us can live with, we'll keep getting one that 50% of us can't stand.