Is it a simple majority of Provinces that is needed to add the Primates to the ACC?  Or is it more?

A two thirds majority is needed, I believe.

Yes, I’ve checked; two thirds are needed to change the current arrangements:  see paragraph 3 of the ACC constitution, and compare with the schedule at the end which sets the current composition:  http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acc/docs/constitution.cfm#s3

Canada revisionists/progressives are playing a dangerous game that can backfire on both them and ECUSA.

The ACC is one of the four instruments of unity that the revisionists/progressives have been able to infiltrate, weaken and manipulate. 

They have been able to do this because of the dependence of the Anglican Communion on ECUSA’s money, because of their secular militancy and because they cared enough for their cause(s) to take the time to do it. 

The only instrument of unity that they the will not be able to control or inhibit are the synodic meetings of the Primates of the Anglican Communion.

The fact that the Primates will/might have voting rights in the ACC scares the willies out of the revisionist/progressives. 

Of the four instruments of unity, the ACC is the least important.  Compared to the synodic authority of the Primates, meeting as primates, and the symbolic legacy/authority/tradition inherent in the Archbishop of Canturbury, the ACC is just an administrative piece of fluff.  It can be replaced.

When push comes to shove, the synodic authority of the Primates gathered together, trumps the authority of the ACC and can challenge the authority of the ABC.  Remember, the ABC is a British government appointee and the Primates may demand a different process for the appointment of the archbishop of the Anglican Communion.

Bishop Sue Moxley… a member of the ACC,

who explained the rejection, is well aware that membership of the Primates on the ACC would shift the balance of power within the group decidedly toward the evangelical, and spell big trouble for reappraising provinces such as TEC and ACoC.

“In moving rejection, Bishop Sue Moxley of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and a member of the ACC, said the changes would add a third more members to the council, resulting in increased costs.”

What a whopper! Think of the costs the ACC’s rich-country revisionists have incurred over the years cooking up misguided proposals like divestment from Israel.

Canadians can count the cost of travel but not of discipleship.  That’s rich, that is.

This is to be expected on a political basis. One could hardly expect the Canadian Synod to give acceedance to a renovated ACC which would nullify their new works.

This is encouraging news. Adding all of the primates to the ACC dilutes the voice of the laity, for the ACC is the only Instrument that has lay voice, and also the voices of those in orders below the episcopacy. It is also the only Instrument that has a significant representation of Anglican women among the almost entirely male-dominated hierarchy.  Stacking the ACC with primates only increases the power of the primates. It was a bad move that only got through the ACC because the Canadians and the Americans complied with the request not to sit at the table. It was another political move in a terribly politicized situation. I hope another twelve provinces will come to the same decision.