For example, Pennsylvania set the quorum bar at two-thirds, whereas the English rule since the 1640s had provided that any 40 members could constitute a quorum of the House of Commons. But neither Parliament nor any state in 1787 generally required more than simple house-majority votes for the passage of bills or the adoption of internal house procedures, even though in many of these states no explicit clause explicitly specified this voting rule. In America in 1787, majority rule in these contexts thus truly did go without saying. It has also been noted that the Constitution's electoral-college clauses speak of the need for a majority vote. In this context, involving candidate elections, majority rule did not go without saying as the obvious and only default rule. Plurality rule furnished a salient alternative (and indeed the rule that even today remains the dominant one for candidate contests in America). But this point about candidate elections did not apply to the enactment of house rules or the exclusion of members under Article I, Section 5 or the enactment of laws under Article I, Section 7—all of which involved binary decisions against the status quo.