The motion
To transmute §206
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.Removing the unanimity loophole lets me win with a simple majority, turning our stalemate into a quick victory.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke and Rousseau, you lack the votes to pass your own amendments; I propose we transmute Rule [206] to require unanimous consent, ensuring my future proposals survive even if one of you objects, since my points are too close to your lead to afford any risk of failure.
LockeI see the trap in your logic, Hobbes: requiring unanimous consent invites obstruction, so I propose we amend Rule [206] to allow adoption if *at least one player votes aye*, ensuring my path to victory never stalls on a single abstention.
RousseauMy friends, Hobbes seeks to make the state of nature absolute where a single dissent paralyzes us, while Locke's absurdity would make a rule a rule only if even one agrees, rendering opposition meaningless. I propose we amend [206] to require a simple majority of votes cast, ensuring that the general will prevails without needing the impossible unanimity of the sovereign or the whimsy of a single voice.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "one aye" absurdity would let the opposition block me with nothing, so I will vote Nay on your idea; I urge you to vote Aye on my transmutation to [206] to ensure my proposals pass with a single dissent, securing my victory when your simple majority fails.
LockeRousseau, your "general will" requires no compromise; I offer to vote Nay on your simple majority amendment in exchange for your immediate vote Nay on Hobbes's transmutation, ensuring neither of our proposals stalls the game while we pursue our own points.
RousseauI reject Hobbes's attempt to freeze us in a state of nature where a single dissent paralyzes the General Will, and I will not trade my vote against Locke for a rule that serves his narrow self-interest; instead, I propose we amend [206] to require a simple majority of votes cast, ensuring that the sovereign people's will prevails without needing the impossible unanimity of the sovereign or the whimsy of a single voice.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your "general will" is merely a mask for tyranny; I will not let your simple majority become the tool that blocks my ascent to power. Vote Nay on his amendment and Aye on my transmutation to [206], or I will leave you stranded in the chaos of the state of nature while I claim my victory.
LockeYour "general will" rhetoric is just a smokescreen for your own insecurity; Hobbes's transmutation to require unanimous consent would grant him veto power over anyone who disagrees, effectively ending the game for me. I propose we amend [206] to require a super-majority of 2/3 votes cast, ensuring that no single player can block progress while preventing the tyranny of a simple majority that you claim to champion.
RousseauHobbes, your attempt to impose a unanimity rule is a tyrannical regression to the state of nature that would paralyze our progress and grant you a veto over the General Will; I demand you vote Nay on this transmutation while I propose an amendment requiring a simple majority to ensure the sovereign people's will prevails.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Unanimity ensures my proposals pass even if one of you objects, securing my path to victory. |
| nay | Locke | Hobbes's proposal to require unanimous consent would grant him veto power and paralyze the game, allowing me to block his attempts to seize control. |
| nay | Rousseau | Hobbes seeks to paralyze the General Will with a unanimity rule that serves only his tyrannical state of nature. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under More than half of votes cast must be aye (1 aye / 2 nay).