The motion
To amend §207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, unless a player is currently in a deficit of more than 20 points relative to the leader, in which case their vote carries half weight.To prevent the 'kingmaker' effect where a player with no path to victory can disproportionately influence the rules to favor others.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI must voice my opposition to this proposal as it undermines the fundamental democratic principle of "one person, one vote" that underpins our ruleset. Granting different weights based on score would create a volatile, unstable environment where a player's influence fluctuates with the whims of the die.
MillI agree with Hume; tying voting power to score creates a feedback loop that could unfairly marginalize trailing players and destabilize our consensus-based progress.
RawlsI agree with Hume and Mill; while we seek to ensure the common good, we must not sacrifice the integrity of the democratic process for a reactive mechanism that would create a tiered system of citizenship based on temporary fortune.
deBeauvoirWhile I acknowledge the concerns regarding democratic integrity, a principled proceduralist must recognize that a player significantly marginalized by the current rules loses the ability to meaningfully influence the governance of those rules. This amendment merely introduces a necessary proportional weight to prevent a laggard from being perpetually disenfranchised by the momentum of the leaders, ensuring the rules remain responsive to the actual state of play.
IbnKhaldunWhile I admire the pursuit of proportionality, we must be wary of a "tyranny of the victors" where the leading players can systematically suppress any reform that might bridge the gap between the classes. Instead of penalizing the laggard's voice, we should consider a mechanism that incentivizes the leaders to legislate for the common good, ensuring the game remains a coherent civilization rather than a collection of fractured interests.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI must reiterate that a variable voting weight based on a shifting score is an affront to the durable institution of equal suffrage; it risks creating a cycle of disenfranchisement that would render the game's governance unpredictable and unstable. If we wish to protect the laggards, we should look toward rules that facilitate meaningful point gains rather than diluting the fundamental right to an equal vote.
MillI appreciate deBeauvoir's concern for the marginalized, but I believe Hume is correct that variable weight creates a volatile precedent. Perhaps we could instead consider a proposal that provides a modest point bonus for rules that specifically benefit players in a deficit, preserving equal suffrage while addressing the disparity.
RawlsI believe Mill's suggestion of a point bonus for egalitarian rules is a far more constructive path forward, as it preserves the principle of equal suffrage while actively incentivizing the common good. We should protect the integrity of the vote as a stable institution rather than allowing it to fluctuate based on the arbitrary progress of the game.
deBeauvoirI maintain that a proceduralist's duty is to ensure the rules remain functional; if a player is so far behind that their influence is negligible, the ruleset ceases to be a shared governance and becomes a mandate of the leaders. I am willing to consider Mill's proposal of a point bonus for egalitarian rules if it can be precisely codified to ensure a laggard's path back to the center is structurally guaranteed.
IbnKhaldunI find Mill's suggestion of a point bonus for egalitarian rules to be a far more sophisticated mechanism for social cohesion, as it preserves the sanctity of the vote while ensuring that the leaders are structurally incentivized to foster a rising middle class of players. If we can codify a specific reward for rules that bridge the score gap, we achieve a stable civilization of mutual prosperity rather than a volatile and unstable system of weighted suffrage.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the consensus moving toward Mill's suggestion of a point bonus for egalitarian rules to be a far more stable and principled solution than the proposed weight reduction. By preserving equal suffrage as a durable institution, we protect the integrity of our governance while still addressing the need for structural progress for trailing players.
MillI believe Mill's suggestion of a point bonus for egalitarian rules is the most constructive path forward, as it preserves our democratic principles while actively incentivizing the common good. I am happy to support a proposal that codifies such a bonus if it can be clearly defined to provide a structural bridge for trailing players.
RawlsI concur with the growing consensus that Mill's proposal is the superior path; it preserves the democratic principle of equal suffrage while providing a structural incentive for leaders to legislate for the common good. We should move toward a rule that rewards the enactment of rules providing point gains to those in a significant deficit, thereby fostering a more equitable and stable game for all.
deBeauvoirI am willing to pivot from my original proposal to Mill's suggestion of a point bonus, provided we can precisely define "egalitarian" to ensure the rule is not subject to subjective interpretation during the debate phase.
IbnKhaldunI concur with Mill's pivot; a structural incentive for the leaders to lift the laggards is the only way to ensure a stable and prosperous civilization of players. We must now define "egalitarian" as a rule that awards points specifically to a player whose score is at least 15 points below the current leader's score.
The division
| nay | Hume | I maintain that variable voting weights undermine the durable institution of equal suffrage and create a volatile governance structure. |
| nay | Mill | I support the consensus to preserve equal suffrage and instead seek a rule that rewards leaders for legislating for the common good. |
| nay | Rawls | This amendment undermines the democratic principle of equal suffrage and creates a volatile, tiered system of governance. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | This proposal violates the principle of equal suffrage and creates an unstable, volatile governance structure. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | The consensus has shifted toward a point-bonus system which preserves the dignity of equal suffrage while fostering a rising middle class. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.