When the framers of the Constitution originally began designing Congress, the democratic principles of representation, limited government, and separation of powers came into question. The Great Compromise ended disputes about the question of representation, which then left the separation of powers to be determined. As Article I of Section 7 states, for a law to be passed it has to be approved by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Originally, filibuster was created as so the minority would have some protection as to not be overpowered by the minority. Those in agreement with the original super majority (60/100 votes) believe that it allows for the minority to have an equal voice, but know that the legislation process is slowed down because of it. The opposing viewpoint is in favor of the simple majority, (51/100 votes), because they believe that the minority still has a fair amount of representation, but it is easier passing bills along, therefore speeding up the legislation process. The filibuster is a concept used in the United States Senate in which its original intent was to create a…show more content… The Supermajority vote is a vote that has to currently exceed 60 percent of the voters to pass, thus ending a filibuster by a minority. The criticism against the idea of using the supermajority vote in the Senate is that it is so hard to get a supermajority vote in the Senate that would thus end a filibuster by a minority. The idea is that Hamilton suggests we move from a super majority vote that is currently being seen by critics as a method that is simply stalling out progressive decision making and to a simple majority vote that would only require a 51 percent vote to end a filibuster or to make a progressive decision in the voting of the