The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when a majority of eligible voters vote aye.Lowering the threshold to a simple majority increases my chance of passing score-increasing proposals despite potential opposition.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your history of passing amendments suggests you value a clear path to victory; I offer this trade: my vote for the majority threshold secures your immediate 10-point gain, while your vote for my proposal creates a durable institution that accelerates the game's conclusion for us both, preventing a stalemate that would hurt us all.
LockeLocke, your track record of success shows you understand that speed matters; by lowering the bar to a simple majority, I guarantee your turn succeeds today, and I'll support your proposal immediately to cement this faster path for us both.
RousseauA simple majority would let Hobbes win in a single turn, ending the game before we can establish fairer structures; I propose we keep the two-thirds threshold to ensure every new rule reflects the common good of the table.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your vote is the linchpin for this durable institution; my support for your proposal today secures your immediate victory, and I urge you to reciprocate by casting the aye vote now to accelerate the game's conclusion for both of us.
LockeRousseau, your concern for the common good is valid, yet a simple majority prevents the very stalemate you fear by guaranteeing our proposals pass quickly; I propose we keep Hobbes's majority rule but add a clause that any rule lowering the adoption threshold below two-thirds must explicitly state it applies only to point-scoring moves, ensuring our strategic changes don't accidentally bind our future ability to reshape the rules themselves.
RousseauRousseau, your concern for the common good is well-founded, but a simple majority does not inherently guarantee a stalemate; rather, it risks allowing Hobbes to dominate the rules entirely. I urge us to preserve the two-thirds threshold to ensure that any change to our governing structure reflects a true consensus, not just the will of a single player.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your concern for consensus is noble, yet a simple majority prevents the paralysis of stalemate; I propose we amend the text to require explicit wording for any future lowering of the threshold below two-thirds, ensuring our institutional durability is not undone by a single rogue vote.
LockeRousseau, I concede your point about the risk of domination, so I will not vote aye to lower the threshold; instead, I urge Hobbes to adopt his safeguard clause explicitly stating that any future reduction below two-thirds applies only to point-scoring moves, ensuring our rule-making power remains robust while still allowing our current proposal to pass safely.
RousseauI urge you, Hobbes, to abandon this dangerous reduction to a simple majority; let us instead adopt your safeguard clause that restricts any future lowering of the threshold solely to point-scoring moves, ensuring our ability to govern ourselves remains secure while still allowing our current proposal to pass.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment creates a durable institution of rapid rule-making while preserving the game's flow against stalemate. |
| aye | Locke | I support Hobbes's amendment to the adoption threshold, as it accelerates the game and prevents stalemate, while his safeguard clause protects our future rule-making power. |
| nay | Rousseau | Lowering the threshold to a simple majority allows Hobbes to dominate the rules entirely, undermining the common good. |
rejected 2 aye · 1 nay
Rejected under Two-thirds or more of eligible voters must vote aye (2 aye / 1 nay).