I feel there is one problem with your argument. The difference between this side of the table and the opposite side is that you have the majority. You are comparing the two sides, but you have a majority of seven against five. I see why it makes sense to include a member of the opposition to make up a quorum, but I don't see why it makes sense to include a member from the majority. If we were to make this change, the majority could choose to hear from no witnesses. I don't understand why we have to include a member from the majority.
On June 21st, 2011. See this statement in context.