The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when all eligible voters cast a vote of aye.Restoring unanimity for rule changes prevents the minority from being bound by majority rule, preserving the social contract's fairness.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's demand for unanimity effectively halts the game at 75 points, as the very first player to move cannot win without your consent; I propose amending Rule [203] to lower the threshold to a simple majority instead, which will allow me to pass my proposed changes and reach victory without requiring your cooperation.
LockeRousseau, your unanimity requirement would indeed freeze the game until you concede, but Hobbes, while your simple majority is safer for you, it still leaves me vulnerable to being outvoted by a lone ally if I cannot secure your support; let us meet halfway by lowering the threshold to a simple majority for all future proposals, except that any attempt to lower it further would require unanimous consent, ensuring stability while giving you a path to victory.
RousseauHobbes, your rush for a simple majority ignores the chaos of the "lock-in" effect you fear; a lower threshold merely accelerates a tyrant's grip, whereas my proposal for unanimity ensures every law carries the common good. Let us not trade justice for speed, but rather build a foundation where no single player can dominate without the consent of the people.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "meeting halfway" is a clever trap; while you claim stability, your proposal leaves the 2/3 threshold intact, wasting my turn, whereas my amendment to simple majority immediately grants me the power to enact a victory condition and secure the 75 points I need to win.
LockeHobbes, your rush for a simple majority ignores the fact that [208] requires 75 points to win, and with only 10 points, you cannot win even if you pass every single subsequent proposal; meanwhile, Rousseau's unanimity rule would freeze the game forever, so let us compromise by adopting a simple majority now, but explicitly requiring unanimous consent for any future attempt to lower the threshold further than that.
RousseauHobbes, your rush for a simple majority ignores the chaos of the "lock-in" effect you fear; a lower threshold merely accelerates a tyrant's grip, whereas my proposal for unanimity ensures every law carries the common good. Let us not trade justice for speed, but rather build a foundation where no single player can dominate without the consent of the people.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your "compromise" is merely a stalling tactic that wastes this turn while leaving the two-thirds threshold in force, leaving me one step further from victory than I am now. I propose adopting a simple majority for all future rule changes immediately, as my path to 75 points requires decisive action, not your protectionist delays.
LockeRousseau, your unanimity demand guarantees a permanent deadlock at 75 points, while Hobbes correctly notes that your proposal leaves this turn wasted; I propose we adopt the simple majority you fear and the stability I seek, with the critical caveat that lowering the threshold further than a majority requires unanimous consent, ensuring you cannot later be trapped by a tyrant while Hobbes can finally pursue his victory.
RousseauHobbes, your rush for a simple majority creates a tyranny where the few can oppress the many without consent; I urge you to see that true progress requires the free agreement of all, not the coercion of a majority, so please join me in demanding unanimity to preserve our shared liberty.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Unanimity will freeze the game before I can reach the 75 points required to win. |
| nay | Locke | Rousseau's unanimity rule would freeze the game at the first turn, preventing any victory for anyone. |
| aye | Rousseau | True law requires the consent of all, not the tyranny of a majority. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Two-thirds or more of eligible voters must vote aye (1 aye / 2 nay).