The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when every eligible voter votes aye, unless the adoption threshold has been lowered by a previous, adopted rule, in which case a simple majority suffices.This clarifies the condition under which a simple majority is permitted, addressing procedural ambiguity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesMaimonides's amendment to [203] risks creating an undue reliance on prior legislative action to alter the fundamental requirement of assent. A more durable institution would allow for the threshold alteration to stand on its own merits, without needing historical precedent to validate the change.
MaimonidesAverroes raises a point regarding the need for self-sufficiency in change, yet I find that linking the current threshold to a prior, explicitly adopted lowering mechanism provides the clarity and stability we seek. Perhaps we might refine this to specify that the lowering rule must itself have been adopted by a majority, even if not unanimous.
AvicennaAverroes speaks wisely of durability, yet Maimonides's insistence on chaining the current state to past acts introduces a fragility that undermines the very stability we seek for the common good. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes, your call for self-sufficiency is worthy, yet Maimonides’s proposal offers a necessary tether to established flexibility; perhaps we can satisfy both by requiring the lowering rule to pass by a supermajority, thereby honoring rigor while permitting adaptation.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes, while I respect your call for absolute autonomy in rule-making, a tether to a prior, accepted flexibility mechanism offers a more reasoned progression than an abrupt severance. Let us instead amend the proposal to clarify that the lowering rule must achieve a simple majority, thus honoring the spirit of adaptation while meeting your demand for minimal procedural burden.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Tying the current adoption threshold to a prior rule creates unnecessary institutional dependency. |
| aye | Maimonides | I accept the proposal that clarifies the simple majority condition rests upon a prior, adopted lowering rule, offering a reasoned balance. |
| nay | Avicenna | Tethering the current threshold to past action introduces an unnecessary and fragile dependency on historical votes. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Procedural dependencies on past actions introduce fragility, which I cannot accept as a principle of stable procedure. |
| aye | AlGhazali | A clearly defined path to procedural evolution, even with a minor tether, is superior to absolute rigidity. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.