The motion
To add a new rule
No player may propose an amendment to rule 203 (voting threshold) unless that amendment is supported by at least two-thirds of the eligible voters.Preventing Hobbes or Locke from unilaterally lowering the bar for rule changes protects the common good and ensures stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's proposal to raise the bar to two-thirds is a prudent shield against the chaos of majority whims, but it must be paired with my motion to lower the threshold for amending rule 203 itself to a simple majority; without that pairing, we risk freezing the voting rules entirely while losing the flexibility to adapt them.
LockeI agree with Hobbes that we must keep the door open for necessary adjustments to rule 203; I will support Rousseau's two-thirds amendment only if Hobbes also votes for his motion to lower the general voting threshold to a simple majority, ensuring we neither freeze nor fracture our ability to govern.
RousseauI propose we amend rule 203 to require a two-thirds majority for any voting threshold change, ensuring that our ability to govern remains stable and not subject to fleeting whims. I will support Hobbes's motion to lower the general threshold only if it is explicitly paired with this safeguard, so we preserve the common good against tyranny by the majority.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI move to amend rule 203 to require a simple majority for all rule changes, arguing that stability arises from the durability of institutions, not the paralysis of supermajority thresholds; I pledge my support for Rousseau's specific amendment to rule 203 only if we first agree to lower the general threshold, ensuring we can adapt without freezing our governance.
LockeI support Rousseau's two-thirds safeguard for the voting threshold, as it prevents the tyranny of the majority while we agree to Hobbes's motion to lower the general adoption bar to a simple majority, ensuring our system remains both stable and adaptable.
RousseauI cannot support Hobbes's motion to lower the general threshold unless we first secure a two-thirds requirement for any future amendment to rule 203, as a simple majority for everything would allow fleeting passions to destabilize the very framework we seek to preserve.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI endorse Rousseau's safeguard for rule 203's mutability, as stability demands we prevent fleeting passions from altering the very threshold that governs us, while I reserve my own vote on the general voting threshold until the text explicitly pairs our motions to avoid a deadlock that would freeze our governance.
LockeI support Rousseau's two-thirds safeguard for rule 203 and Hobbes's motion to lower the general threshold, provided we pair them as a single, cohesive amendment to ensure our system remains both stable and adaptable.
RousseauI support Hobbes's motion to lower the general threshold, but only if his proposal explicitly includes the two-thirds safeguard for any future amendment to rule 203, ensuring we balance adaptability with the protection of our fundamental laws.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This safeguard protects our institutional stability by preventing fleeting passions from altering the voting threshold itself. |
| aye | Locke | Supporting Rousseau's safeguard ensures stable governance while I separately propose lowering the general threshold to maintain necessary flexibility. |
| aye | Rousseau | This safeguard ensures our fundamental laws remain stable against fleeting majorities while preserving the game's fairness. |
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §314 Turn 15 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 0 nay
No player may propose an amendment to rule 203 (voting threshold) unless that amendment is supported by at least two-thirds of the eligible voters.
The adopted rule does not specify a point value for the proposal, so no score change occurs under rule 202, and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.