The political process is arbitrarily defined by its own user base. The basic principles of vote, quorum, majority are sufficiently universal, the way they are used in the flow are not. In order to achieve a neutral platform which allows for any kind of usage scenario, the system has to allow its users to construct and use their own model and use their very same model to alter it.
Let’s make an example.
A starting community has just one user. He is defining a process involving one single turn of vote based on 50% + 1 votes to pass any proposal. Due to being alone in the system his proposal is immediately approved. A second person joins the system. He starts a new proposal of having, as an example, a new voting law of having at least 50% of individuals expressing their vote in order to validate the result. This proposal gets voted (of course with the approved voting law) but the first user votes against, causing the proposal to fail. Later, two more individuals join the community and the same proposal is promoted for vote again. This time there are three positives, one negative. The law passes and from then onwards it will be enforced by the system for any subsequent vote. A new proposal, of no matter what type, is open for vote and the results are 1 positive and 1 negative. The new electoral law considers the proposal as rejected since it failed to reach the 50% threshold required by the new electoral law.
It can be observed that there is a ‘special’ category of proposals which have impact on the way the system works. They really follow the exact same process like any other proposals but they can be considered inward to the platform and should be submitted to the attention of all participants, so to ensure there is full viability of such potentially crucial changes.