Thursday Response #2 Parliamentary Law

Here is my list of how I would adapt parliamentary Law if I held to the Quaker/Brethren perspective.
1. Instead of 1 person motioning for something, I would require a group motion, meaning at least 3 people must motion initially.
2. In order for a motion to be verified, a discussion amongst the group would be a held and a majority vote must be reached to have a valid second.
3. I would keep the discussion similar to Robert's way but made the chair ask more specific questions, trying to weaken the chairs power to sway the vote.
4. I would require at least a 75% vote in order to pass the motion.
5. It less than 75% is achieved discussion is continued until it is reached.
6. If it is seemingly impossible to reach 75%, the motion must be dropped.

Problems with my new method.
1. More discussion time allows the "blabber mouths" to overwhelm the discussion process.
2. It would be harder to get things past if a 75% vote was needed.
3. The meetings would take a long time because a higher percentage vote is needed as well as more discussion time is included.