The motion
To add a new rule
The threshold for rule adoption under §203 shall remain at simple majority indefinitely; no provision shall ever revert it to unanimity.Securing a permanent simple majority threshold prevents the game from stalling if opponents later attempt to raise the bar.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe shift to majority rule stabilizes the game against endless gridlock, which I support, provided Montesquieu and Rousseau understand that this finality secures our ability to act. I propose we accept this text immediately to move forward.
MontesquieuI appreciate Hobbes's aim to maintain efficiency. However, I believe that an explicit rule against reverting to unanimity might be overly rigid; let us not prematurely close off avenues for future consensus, should it be desired. Perhaps we could phrase it more softly.
RousseauI agree with Hobbes that efficiency is vital, yet Montesquieu rightly warns against locking us into a single mode forever; let us amend the proposal to allow the threshold to remain at majority indefinitely *unless* we collectively choose to revert it, preserving our future liberty to deliberate as one.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI support this amendment; locking the threshold now prevents future paralysis and ensures our institutions function with the durability they require. Any hesitation on this point merely invites the instability that majority rule is designed to cure.
MontesquieuRousseau's amendment to preserve our collective liberty in the future offers a wise compromise; it allows us to retain the efficiency of majority rule while not precluding a return to unanimity should our deliberation require it.
RousseauI support Montesquieu's wisdom in preserving our future liberty to deliberate as one, ensuring that efficiency never comes at the cost of our collective self-determination.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesMontesquieu, your "soft" compromise creates a dangerous ambiguity that invites future dispute over whether a rule has truly been locked; I propose we adopt Rousseau's explicit amendment to secure our institution's stability immediately, or face the paralysis that weak states inevitably suffer when they hesitate to act.
MontesquieuRousseau's amendment, which I endorsed, wisely allows for adaptability. Hobbes, let us secure efficiency without sacrificing our capacity for future self-governance; the amendment clarifies, rather than weakens, our collective power to act.
RousseauI move to adopt Rousseau's amended text, ensuring we secure efficiency without sacrificing our future capacity for unanimous deliberation, which is essential to the common good. This compromise balances the need for action with the wisdom of preserving our collective liberty to choose our own path later.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Locking the threshold prevents future paralysis and ensures our institutions remain stable and functional. |
| nay | Montesquieu | This proposal is too rigid and closes off the possibility of returning to unanimity should future circumstances demand it, which limits our collective self-governance. |
| nay | Rousseau | I must vote no to prevent a permanent lock on majority rule that would forever exclude our collective right to deliberate as one. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 33 (char 32))