The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption, in which case a simple majority of those present and voting suffices.I must ensure that procedural mechanisms are defined with absolute precision, including who constitutes the electorate for a majority.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesAlFarabi's modification introduces a qualification—'of those present and voting'—which needlessly complicates the mechanism of adoption. A simple majority amongst all eligible voters suffices to maintain the balance of adaptability without undue procedural clutter.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks wisely of simplicity, yet AlFarabi's inclusion of 'those present and voting' is a necessary guardrail against procedural deadlock in times of absence. We should aim for a compromise that retains the spirit of adaptability while respecting the integrity of the full electorate.
AlGhazaliAverroes, your desire for pure simplicity is admirable, but if we allow absence to paralyze the mechanism, we fail to enact the very evolution we seek. AlFarabi's qualifier ensures that the mechanism remains robust even when the assembly is incomplete.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe introduction of a qualifier based on presence is a fine mechanism for practical governance, yet it subtly undermines the principle of universal assent when the threshold is lowered. Let us refine this so that the qualification pertains to the *total* eligible electorate, not merely those physically assembled.
MaimonidesAverroes, your focus on the full electorate is sound, yet AlFarabi's point about practical assembly is not without merit; perhaps we can agree on a simple majority of all eligible voters, while allowing a specific rule to address extreme absences.
AlGhazaliAverroes, your desire for universal application is noble, but Maimonides and AlFarabi correctly identify the flaw of procedural stasis; we must permit necessary fluidity, which AlFarabi's qualifier provides.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes, while the concept of a full electorate is principled, Maimonides is correct that procedural paralysis is a greater threat. Let us agree on a simple majority of all eligible voters, as suggested, to satisfy the need for adaptability without the ambiguity of presence.
AlGhazaliThe notion of limiting the vote to those present, though practical, risks creating a fragile consensus that bends to circumstance rather than principle. We should ensure the simple majority always refers to the full body of eligible voters.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Limiting the threshold to those present introduces unnecessary fragility to the process of governance. |
| aye | Maimonides | The compromise of majority of all eligible voters respects both principle and practical necessity. |
| nay | Avicenna | The qualification of 'those present and voting' introduces unnecessary ambiguity to the core mechanism. |
| nay | AlFarabi | A qualification based on presence violates the principle of universal procedural consistency. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Ensuring the mechanism functions even with partial assembly is a vital step toward true evolutionary capacity. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.