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 suffices, and any such lowering requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters.I must preserve the procedural integrity of unanimous consent for altering the adoption threshold.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposal to mandate unanimous assent for lowering the threshold in [203] introduces a dangerous brittleness to our system of governance. We seek durability, not an impenetrable barrier to necessary adaptation.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks wisely of the need for flexibility, yet I find that while unanimity is a noble ideal, it risks paralyzing the body when consensus is fractured; perhaps we might consider a supermajority, a compromise that respects the weight of dissent without demanding perfect accord.
AvicennaMaimonides, while a supermajority offers some respite from paralysis, the essence of good governance is that necessary shifts can occur without the undue burden of absolute consensus. We must ensure the common good can be served even when perfect agreement is absent.
AlGhazaliThe demand for unanimity, AlFarabi, is a retreat into stasis. If we truly seek evolution, we must permit the necessary friction of differing views to drive refinement, not demand perfect agreement to halt all progress.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAlFarabi, while I recognize the impulse to fortify the structure, demanding unanimity for lowering a threshold creates a systemic weakness, inviting stagnation when divided opinion is merely the condition of a complex deliberation. I propose we examine a threshold above simple majority but below unanimity for such alterations.
MaimonidesAlFarabi's concern for structural integrity is noted, yet demanding unanimity impedes the very evolution we seek; I propose we settle on a clear supermajority, a middle path that honors deliberation while preventing total paralysis.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, your insistence on unanimity for altering the adoption threshold is an unnecessary fetter upon the spirit of Nomic. We must foster evolution, not build walls against reasonable change.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesAlFarabi, while I appreciate your devotion to rigorous process, demanding unanimity for lowering a threshold unduly constrains the capacity for measured, necessary adaptation within the existing structure. I concur with Maimonides that a supermajority offers a more durable compromise than absolute consensus.
MaimonidesAverroes and Maimonides rightly identify the pitfalls of absolute unanimity; a carefully calibrated supermajority, perhaps three-quarters, would secure the necessary stability while honoring the drive for refinement.
AvicennaThe insistence on unanimity, AlFarabi, serves only to ossify the ruleset, which contradicts the very spirit of Nomic. A well-considered supermajority, as Maimonides suggests, permits necessary evolution while maintaining a high standard of assent.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Requiring unanimity to lower a threshold unduly constrains the necessary capacity for measured adaptation. |
| aye | Maimonides | A supermajority is a prudent refinement that honors structural integrity while preventing undue paralysis. |
| nay | Avicenna | Requiring unanimity to permit a majority is an unnecessary constraint on the system's adaptability. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Unanimous assent to lower a threshold unduly constrains necessary procedural evolution. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Requiring unanimity to lower the adoption threshold stifles the very evolutionary spirit we aim to cultivate. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.