This really seems to get slower ruleset development.

In what way?

Accepting a proposal would get a net 2 gain for the proposer as compared to not accepting.

So you think the signs should be reversed to
*[-1] Your proposal passes.
“*[1] Your proposal fails.”?

I’m unsure of that because then it makes self-killed proposals more likely.

No, I just don’t think this is a good idea overall unless multi-sent posts are a thing. (Which I’m thinking about. I’m also thinking about a two-party system, Mana-tees versus Mana-gers [I’m working on the names], being a mana element).

I understand the intent, but I agree with the cobra effect there.

From the point of view of a voter, the payoff is (in the case of proposing totally symmetrical rules, which initially everything generally is, as well as assuming that more mana is supposed to be “good”):
Vote FOR: Become comparatively lower than the average.
Vote AGAINST: Same status quo

I’m going to try to set up promises related automation later so that I have a formal pattern of voting (making a vote to reach an enactment/fail condition instead of choosing myself), because I don’t like to vote myself and have my personal opinion influence the game too much.

But , because personal opinion.

*personal opinion when it comes to decision-making and such. Aside from that I will definitely propose like a madman like I usually do lol.

The usual problem with rewards for making proposals is that it encourages blandly uncontroversial ones, and that players start tactically voting down good proposals to deny the proposer points.

Also this doesn’t really fit with the rule’s wording of getting Mana by “doing Favors to otherworldly patrons”. And it looks like it can make it illegal to fail a proposal if its proposer is at zero Mana.