The motion
To repeal §204
and strike it from the statute.Removing the 8-point reward for voting nay eliminates the perverse incentive to vote against one's true interests to gain points, restoring the logic of strategic voting.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesMontesquieu, repealing Rule 204 removes the only mechanism ensuring that the majority's will cannot be obstructed by a minority's dissent; I urge you to vote nay to preserve the stability of the law.
MontesquieuHobbes, I acknowledge your concern for stability, yet repealing Rule 204 would eliminate the reward for dissenting votes, thereby undermining the very balance we seek to achieve. Let us instead refine this rule to ensure both stability and fairness.
RousseauHobbes, your repeal would strip dissenters of the only remedy against the tyranny of the majority; I urge you to reconsider, for a just society requires that those who oppose a change be compensated, not punished into silence.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your defense of dissent as a "remedy" ignores the reality that this clause rewards obstruction over merit; Montesquieu, join me in repealing this rule to restore the true stability of the law, where only sound proposals survive the vote.
MontesquieuHobbes, Rousseau, let us rather amend Rule 204 to increase the reward for dissenting votes, ensuring that minority voices are not silenced, while preserving the integrity of the majority's will.
RousseauHobbes, your repeal would leave us with only the penalty for failure while stripping the reward for principled dissent; I urge you to amend Rule 204 to increase the compensation for dissenters rather than removing the protection entirely, so we preserve both the majority's will and the minority's voice.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on increasing compensation for dissent merely codifies obstruction as a virtue; I urge you to recognize that repealing Rule 204 is the only path to a stable law where merit, not mere opposition, determines the rules.
MontesquieuHobbes, Rousseau, let us find a middle path: instead of repealing Rule 204, which would eliminate the reward for dissent, I propose we amend it to adjust the points gained, thereby balancing the power of the majority with the protection of minority voices.
RousseauMontesquieu, your desire to adjust the points is a mere bandage; we must not only preserve the reward for dissent but increase it to twelve points, ensuring that the cost of forcing the majority's will is truly felt and that the common good of fair play is upheld.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 204 eliminates the perverse incentive to obstruct legislation simply to earn points for dissent. |
| nay | Montesquieu | Repealing Rule 204 would eliminate the reward for dissenting votes, undermining the balance between majority will and minority voices. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing this rule removes the only protection against the tyranny of the majority, leaving dissenters with no remedy but the penalty for failure. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, with no rule change enacted.