Complete Introduction to Building Communities

From Community to National

This is the revised part 3 (of 3) of Building Communities, and it is intended to provide a view of the implementational landscape, from community to national.

---

=Related Reading=

Philosophy and architecture: Primarily on common cause and place, in history, for an independent organization and the use of the democratic method, classified as residing in an expanded fourth estate as a watchdog on “government injustice”, wherein 2/3 support corresponds to its defined political area (as judicial), for violations of universal presumption, i.e. violations of public conscience and integrity.

The Two Sides of Everything (1.8K words) - Intro to the modern l/r split

Liberal, Conservative, and Nonpartisan Concerns (3K) - Intro to l/r and nonpartisan

A Magna Carta for Left and Right (1.5K) - A final paper on l/r and nonpartisan

*Building Communities - Part 2 (8K, 32 mins) - Common cause, definition, and business process

An Open Letter to Educated Persons of the Modern World (3K) - Appeal for a fourth estate organization

Architectural Values (3.5K) - Sharing high-level architectural concerns

How to Fix the Government (9K) - Original philosophy and (sketched) cases, and an older 'method' section

Building Communities - Part 1 (3.5K) - On doing this for community, democracy, politics, and our health

Details: Primarily bylaws and explanations.

*Complete Introduction to Building Communities - Part 3 (7K) - this page; bylaws

*Coalitions and Existing Organizations (4.5K) - Adding independent organizations under the umbrella of public injustice.

Brief: Strategies for Building (800 words) - community, alternative news, and national center

*- contains bylaws

---

Democracy

I think that historically, a way to respond to problem governments is to form deliberative assemblies, like American colonists did from 1772 to 1774. Another way to put this is to have town halls. I have recently seen local meetings in a rural community, and I think this shows great instincts, but I fear that overall, this American direction has become challenged.

We may find today self-appointed leaders of specific groups, science being led by reputations and authority, and news coming from the private sector. In research, a journalist is a secondary source. Fully implemented, this system can constitute a primary source, and this can be of great (epistemic) significance.

People get wired together online, but these formations politically classify as factions, and this will contrast greatly with what is presented here. You can't run a valid people poll online. Online polls are commonly wildly different than general population polls. I think online is where many small communities operate independently of one another.

You generally have to get offline in order to experience the essence of democracy or a town hall, in your jurisdiction. A meeting may be assisted by technology, but that is not what a meeting directly is.

I want to note that I think there has been a great loss in American political infrastructure. There are two major parties in precincts across this country, which represent a lot of our real-world traditional infrastructure, and I find they do not serve our purposes anymore, and so I would say they are effectively gone (from the good). The parties are not defined to pursue nonpartisan interests. (In part 1, some public injustices are listed, and in part 2, they are said to be nonpartisan.)

I think our loss of democracy comes with the loss of the local community. When this happens, then I think the people become profoundly disconnected from their physical and political world (please see the two-sides intro for more on this). Think of it this way... You may find yourself staring at national and even world news, possibly all day, and possibly doing nothing. What can also happen is that you can be acting locally in a group that is nationally organized. You see, I want you to think about this. It starts with you, and then it expands to people local to you, and it builds from there. This is opposite in direction to the top-down implementation.

This is a grassroots approach to building a national organization. It starts with the individual, and then locally, with a few people, and then as a democratic assembly, or "community". A community can then grow, and neighboring communities can merge, and at the level of the federal districts (the US has 436 of these), communities can become districts, with their own ward maps and legislatures, as autonomous, self-governing entities, and then one delegate from each district can gather to form a national assembly. This is how to stay strongly connected to the grassroots, while building a national force.

Because a group can do anything, I think what is needed here is a definition of who and what this is. This definition could be put in writing, to bound the group together with a shared set of rules. We can also make this common cause, which is very much the topic of Building Communities - Part 2 (Common Cause and Definition).

Definition

Here's a quick definition of the proposed organization. Any blockquoted text is bylaws:

Definition: We define ourselves collectively as a voluntary, democratic organization, wherein; upon our government [and its accomplices*], we will monitor for and respond to collectively perceived injustices, and we may note and respond to their ill effects.

*Accomplices were added in an addendum to part 2.

In part 2, there is a lengthier definition, which includes saying that 2/3 support is needed on claims of injustice, and 7/12 on responses to claims. This is to keep us within common cause and out of partisan or preferential interests (see part 2). I think that what is written above puts those who would agree and identify with it into a like group, and in regards to our various particular amendments, as long as we proceed in a fair and democratic manner, we should be able to keep ourselves on board. I think the people who think our government is criminal are the ones most likely to join, or what I call alternative news readers.

The reason why these are "injustices" and not "illegal", for example, is because we would not be able to claim a need to change the law.

Addendum

When I started writing Building Communities, I implemented something new, and it was the word "wrongdoings" in place of "injustices", above. I thought it would be more warm and intuitive, but I have changed back to the former. I have noticed that "wrongdoings" can more easily include personal, moral preferences, where one might say "wrongdoing", but not, "I want that person standing in front of a judge." I find "injustice" to outdo this, for being more publicly natured.

Communities

Community and Assembly: Our membership resides within the bounds of our community, as:
<name, bounds, date established, possible web address, or point of contact>

Communities fill in their own <values>. The central idea of a community is to be local enough that it is within a workable driving distance, although this will be easier for the more dense areas, and more of a challenge for the more sparse ones. Our cross to bear is that we need to use an equal-population grid to produce a national legislature, where they will have one vote each. In the picture below, there is a guess at what nice community sizes might look like. In reality, they can overlap by not knowing of one another, and this will make them easier to merge.

Community Rules: We proceed fairly and democratically. Our assembly holds its bylaws most highly, and we freely amend them by drawing upon the type of democratic, parliamentary devices used by our government, and the regulation of our ongoing procedures is supplemented by reference to Robert's Rules, wherein; we will elect a chairperson and a secretary for our quorums, and we may amend offices, committees, and funds, etc., and we particularly hold that by way of 2/3 support, we may remove any member, or amend any bylaw. With 10 days notice to - or acceptance by - all members, our quorums may operate with the attendance of 2/3 of elected officers and 51% of the total membership.

A quorum is a formal meeting for the conduct of community business. This is where, for example, someone makes a motion, and people may respond, and vote on it. In America, Robert's Rules (and here) are the most popular parliamentary rules, and they include, for example, having a president and a board of directors, which can diverge from this more purely democratic system. When we get to districts, we have legislatures and general members, and like our government, we can amend executive offices for ongoing functions (like some kind of record-keeping), and even judicial, for handling violations of bylaws. A fundamental idea herein is to draw from the American system. For example, (communities and) districts are bylegally autonomous, like US states (see part 2).

A community amends its own offices and committees, for its own needs. Now is a good time to point out something Alexander Hamilton spoke of in Federalist #70. When there is something which someone needs to be held accountable for, don't use a committee - use an executive office. This is for when the money or the records come up missing, or when some defined, necessary, ongoing function isn't being performed. It is to know who it is.

A community is imagined to commence with a few people. At this point, each person has a lot of value - you could say democratically. This brings us to a matter of political trust, and how I would meet someone locally on recruiting. Personally, the first thing I would do is see if the person is an alternative news reader. The second thing I would do is introduce this to them. Interestingly, it seems to me that making these communities could be reported in alternative news, which could then be seen by people across America's communities.

I expect when getting started, people in a community could meet more informally. As long as everyone is there, they could amend what they want. There is a learning curve to Robert's Rules, and maybe people could share going over some of this. Or, a community could amend an informal activity, like a picnic (see sample bylaws). Once you have confidence in a meeting chair (and secretary), you can run quorums.

I see starting considerations including a chairperson and secretary, and offices for keeping member information, recruiting new members, keeping a web page, and a keeping of all records. In time, I can see keeping money or property. Specific property items could be signed over to elected officers. In the case of having funds, there could be a modest annual fee (like $30 or so), and/or there could be specific amendments for fundraisings. For having money, there could be one elected officer for holding it, and another for keeping the accounting. I think a property owner in the community would be good for holding the money, and I would use a credit union, which is not a bank.

In the case of records, each particular office would have copies of its own. Beyond this, I imagine there can be a records person, and then a records backup person, since one records office would be a very centralized thing. A community could rely on elected people using their own PCs. I think it would help, in recruiting, to be able to note members as "admin" if they have personal computers, and would agree to (capably) use them for community business. It could help when it comes time to fill a new office.

Emails are handy tools for our early needs; they are stamped with senders, recipients, and timestamps, their subject lines contribute to organization of materials, and their contents or attachments can be taken as documents. At a community level, for its purposes, I would wholeheartedly embrace the use of email. There are simple tools for producing PDFs from folders of emails (which can go to "records")

Then the membership grows, and I think Internet host providers will be very useful, because for about $120/year, a community or district can have an Internet server, with its own web site, records, and email server, and various other such capabilities. If communities in a district merge, then one of their servers may no longer be needed.

Members

Membership: We recruit from resident, voting-age citizen-volunteers in our community, regardless of minority status. We confidentially record member email addresses, phone numbers, and home addresses. We verify member's citizenship and residency. All member actions are voluntary. Membership is not recognized for persons working for the government.

Stated requirements include being a voting-age citizen and resident of the community. At the start, going through the process of checking people in contributes to building the community.

For conflicts of interest, a person can sign a paper saying they are "not working for the government". This words a way of including government employees, and could include owners or administrators of companies that subsist on government contracts, but I think it may be more restrictive than needed to include the many non-administrative employees of private companies that subsist on government contracts. I have been an employee in this position, and in the US, when a private company requests political actions from its employees, this can turn into conflicts with the National Labor Relations Act. I think people should amend what they feel they need, to deal with conflicts of interest, but I do not anticipate this being much of an issue. Government employees have conflicts of interest with us, and it does not seem likely for administrators of (said) private companies to take community membership themselves.

Political Trust

Trust is an issue at three points along the way. First, with a new recruit, second, when communities merge, and third, when districts join the "national network" (of districts). At each point, there is the matter of saying that we recognize one another. When people meet, they can provide evidence for political trust purposes. I think having a history which includes consuming alternative news could serve this purpose (and greater participation all the more). There are browser, commenting, YouTube, social media, and email histories which may provide support, to say that the person has been doing what this organization does, or to say; "upon our government, to monitor for (and respond) to collectively perceived injustices...". This type of background can also contribute to what people take to be a person's seniority (for example, for meeting and committee chairs).

"We recruit from" means to say that we have a hand in recruiting, at the start, with new members. In time, the community can grow to the point where there is enough democratic protection by way of the existing membership, to easily maintain stability in the face of one or two ne'er-do-wells, and so even the writing can become more open. "We recruit from" could be changed to "We accept", and I think at some point this has to happen, in order to be fully, openly democratic. Herein, this open wording is used at the district level, where there are at least 150 members. I imagine that an early community will become a level more robust in its range of 10 to 20 members. I think that when it's less than 10, it's a more sensitive time.

Members - Addendum

I had not said this in the rules of membership, but I also think that what is said here is basically true even if it is not said here, but I like having it in writing.

A member is held to stand in support of unopposed to* our organization, in acceptance of our due process, and in accordance with our rules - including our rules of behavior, and any violation by a member may cause their membership to be altered in status or revoked, and when this includes a lawful violation, whether criminal or civil, it may invoke our due legal recourse and related proceedings.

*-6/12 change, is in Coalitions and Existing Organizations, from “in support of” to “unopposed to”.

"Support of our organization" and "acceptance of our due process" are about treason. For every nation and organization, there is for and against. I think to contradict this organization and what it is doing can happen in two ways; where either a person could use the system to amend change, or they could go outside of the system to force the matter from there.

This is when we start talking about people with picket signs, exercising their First Amendment rights to protest this community. I think they can resemble ne'er-do-wells trying to be destructive to the community. This is a system which can be amended in the process of using it. When we've gotten to the point of having protestors, then the only thing I feel I can say for sure is that something is broken.

If the system is broken and can't be used to make itself better, then it seems necessary to go outside of it, to force it to change, or to bring it to an end. I see no place for having rules for going outside of the system. I think it is true that when a system is hopelessly broken, it is time to seriously consider going outside of it. I estimate that the only protestors, or the like, that we're going to see here, will be the people working for the political opposition.

Networking

Prior to the establishment of a national assembly, we will endeavor to provide notice to and seek notices by communities-in-kind, and to gain recognition with and, at will, to join in either; 1) a merger of communities in one federal district, or 2) a merger of a district with the National Network.

The reason for saying "at will" is because two communities may be in the same district, but they may be far enough apart to want to stay more local at the time. When communities are small enough that they aren't in a position to make a district, which needs 150 people, then they may be best off to continue more locally until they are larger. (Once districts are formed, more local jurisidictions come back in the form of wards).

Community Mergers

Communities within one federal district may merge; first by way of gaining each other's recognition as communities, with all of their offices and members; second by establishing all bylaws and offices for the merger; and third by publicly announcing the new community.

Each community could start with sending a few officers to a meeting, for a first round of recognition. Member lists could be exchanged for random checks on each. Everyone could show up at a common get-together for real. For merging bylaws and offices, there could be joint quorums (which are expected to use private ballots). People in a small community could resign to a larger one. There seem to be many particular ways.

For posterity, I would like to see original community pages historically kept by the districts they come to merge into. Across the country, this record could include the many local communities who started it.

Districts

District Candidate: When a community has 150 members or more, and it has united with all recognized communities in its federal district, it may bound itself as those who nationally comprise that district, and it may then give public notice and commence operation as district candidate.

In the next section, we'll see gerrymandering and border deals, where being a district candidate means being able to change the district’s border before making a ward map and a legislature. ;-) I see a way in which this incentivises communities, because they will want people to be operating in their neighboring districts, if they want to more easily make border deals. From the grassroots, I think this is not only building one's community; it potentially extends into boosting one's neighbors. I think getting one's community online and being reported in alternative news can also boost one's neighbors.

District: At will, a district candidate may proceed to fulfill all requirements for being fully implemented and nationally recognizable as a district. A fully recognizable national district shall include:

· A parliamentary implementation for managing elections. The district will amend its defined procedures for elections, outside of which any candidate or member may respond on their own behalf [3/2025], but no outside campaigning or campaign support for elections is to be allowed.

· At least 12 reasonably equal-population wards, with a representative elected from each.

· A legislative assembly. The general assembly will be dissolved into the legislature as the new assembly, as comprised of all ward representatives.

· An elected district representative.

· A parliamentary implementation for administering to member bylaw violations.

· A records office, and backup [3/2025].

· A district web site.

District bylaws may be amended with the support of 2/3 of the assembly, as followed by majority support in a general vote.

Elections is the first item on the above list, and this is based upon what many smaller democratic organizations do. They don't have campaigning, and campaign trails; they go through a predefined set of motions, and people vote, and it is done. This is how they keep money out of their elections.

The reason for having a records office separate from the regular offices, where each has their own copies, is to check man. I find Federalist #10 to be good reading on man's fallible character. To me, this means that any office holder can, for example, blow a gasket, and the question to the architect is, "how do we check this?" This is where the redundancy comes in with a records office, and because there is only one records office, there is also a backup.

It occurs to me that a districting committee can be made, to make a map of wards. The committee might produce a map with 2/3 of its support, and this could pass with majority support in the general assembly (as a check).

Bylaw violations have to go somewhere. I think this can be as simple as a function of a standing legislative committee, or as involved as a defined capability to make the claim, and a judicial office for hearing cases.

If a district legislature wants to use, for example, a standing committee to draft or perform some of what is listed above, then by all means, let them amend the committee first, or whatever else they feel is needed, to complete the above tasks.

Before a community becomes a district, it is also in a position to prepare for the transition. I think a large enough community could make a districting committee, and they could make a ward map. This could be how becoming a district begins. Here is an update to membership (saying "We accept"):

District Membership: We accept resident, voting-age citizen-volunteers in our district, regardless of minority status. …

Wards per District

[Sample on the rules of ward sizes: When our average ward membership size is 150 or more we may, and when it is 300 or more we must; increase our number of wards to an average size between 25 and 250.]

I feel like I am guessing at what ward sizes people will like. In my sample above, the cap of 300 is guessing people will think their ward is too big for its own meetings. The reason for moving to a number as small as 25 is to be able to prepare for wards growing a lot, without having to later increase the number of wards again.

250 per ward with 24 wards would be 1% of the voter population, at 6,000. The number of wards is the size of the legislature, and with a glut of people, there will be these questions: 1) how big do we want a ward to be, 2) how many wards do we want to have, and 3) how many districts do we want the country to have? In thinking of changing the number of districts, which would run like a ripple across the country, I am guessing that it wouldn't be a concern, until going past about 25,000 members per district, or 4% of US voters (or 11 million nationally).

Border Agreements for Neighboring Districts

Below are some examples of gerrymandered districts in this country.

Gerrymandered districts are not designed for our comfort. They rearrange voting groups to win. The government can also continue to do this, which can cause us to have to pick up and move with the changes. Perhaps at the start, we can use the federal grid, and to follow, we can decouple ourselves from such further changes. Most US districts don't look like the ones above.

The above districts appear to be more difficult to go to meetings in. It may also not be the easiest way to meet people who really are in driving distance. I do have to say, I think in some-sized districts rectangles can be very good, because they can lend themselves to having two teleconferencing nodes with short driving distances for everyone.

Border Agreements for Neighboring Districts: Bordering districts, including district candidates, within the same US state may recognize one another and jointly agree to redraw their common border. In these agreements, each district may retain most practicably its original US-population size, or adjust to more equal sizes. Districts may negotiate any terms in advance, regarding the future statuses of offices or persons following the change.

Before a border change, each district must establish leadership that will be in place after the change. In all cases, a changed district becomes a district candidate, taking as members those residing within its new border, and it may, at will, proceed to complete all requirements for being a national district.

The reason for giving districts the ability to retain their original size when entering a deal, is because if they wish to retain their original size, they can say no to any deals. This can obstruct what neighbors might try to benefit from. Each district inherits its original size. If a place for a size concern does arise, districts may also adjust to more equal sizes, and I think this could happen. I find it interesting to consider what size I might prefer. I think it could be larger, or smaller.

Put another way, if worded as "most practicably equal" (like the government), then one district wouldn't be allowed to offer to another to keep its original size and negotiate from there. By not wording it as "equal", districts may more-so retain their initial options, and end on their negotiated terms. I hope this fosters the greatest number of border agreements, ending with the most overall comfort.

When thinking about the future, I think it would be nice if our districts could be settled in, in some combination with certain real properties people may be accustomed to using.

In a larger picture, there is the matter of evolving district counts (the total number of US districts has been frozen since 1929, but state totals can change). How many districts will we need as the US grows? As it currently stands, both US districts and states are about 25 times larger on average than when the US began (see part 2). For localization and distribution, I think 436 districts for this land and people would be sufficient for up to 10 times the current population, or about 3.3 billion, before we should start saying we need to see if our districts are sufficiently local, and maybe at that time, we could talk about cutting each district in two. I think we will be well-distributed at 436 for a long time. Conversely, the districts could be more meticulously changed to an altogether different average size, across the country. For now, I think we begin with sufficiently robust and localized jurisdictions and an already-drawn equal-population grid, by beginning with the use of the federal districts (also see part 2).

National Network

National Network: We will create a common, national network of verified districts, and a network assembly comprised of one elected representative from each verified district. With even rotation through performing verifications, each district is to be recognized by two others to be verified, until there are a total of seven such verified districts, at which time the representative from each will form a 7-seat Network Committee, which will elect its own chair, oversee any network problems or disputes, and administer a first-in, first-out network queue from which, for each new-district recognition, it will draw one verified district to perform the task.

I imagine that if the first seven districts have each been checked by two others, then the network will be off to a very solid start. To follow, I think using one verified district to check each new district should be enough. Each verified district is taken to be a robust entity.

National Network Committee: Any network-related dispute, by applicant or member district, may appeal to the Network Committee, which may, within 30 days, complete its own inquiry, including into any offices and members of districts involved, and with at least 2/3 of its support, present its final decisions with all of its evidence to the Network Assembly. The committee may call for a district or its persons to meet verification requirements. When the committee's decisions call for the removal of persons or districts from the network that have been verified, the whole assembly shall decide, by one majority vote per removal, as to whether to uphold or decline the committee's decision.

I think a possibility is to have fakers who pretend to be communities or districts. If a new district that failed recognition also fails in committee, then they're out, and hopefully it doesn't take too much time. If the committee, for any reason, finds that they want to remove someone who is already verified, then even with 2/3 committee support, the matter, with all evidence, goes to a full assembly vote (bearing in mind that at least 5 of a 7-seat committee have already shown support.) I think this is all that can be done for any unforseen circumstance.

I imagine it could be possible for fakers to make 7 fake districts (to defeat this system), along with an entirely fake network. For me, this is why gaining recognition is key. Because of this, there could be two national networks, each saying that it recognizes its own members, where one is made of real districts, and the other is more-so fake, and I think the former will leave the latter out. I would say stay real, and stay recognizable; that's where the actual people will be.

National Assembly

National Assembly: When the verified national network includes at least 3/4 (or 327) of the 436 districts (including one for D.C.), its assembly becomes active as the National Assembly, to lead on all national amendments. The National Network will continue to exist, to take on new districts until all have joined.

Firstly, the national assembly will conduct a majority vote as to whether to conduct the following starting procedure:

In each of the 9 US states that are comprised of 8 to 10 districts each, i.e. Washington, Arizona, Indiana, Tennesee, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Maryland, representatives will elect and be caucused by one delegate, who will serve on a National Districting Committee. With 2/3 of its own support, this committee will produce propositions for grid-maps for the country, with each grid-type using reasonably equally-sized grid units (in number of districts), to be used for sourcing persons for geographically representative committees, with consideration to potentially serve the needs of regional meetings, and with majority support, this proposition may be ratified by the whole assembly.

I chose a 9-seat committee as a good representative size, and as an odd number to avoid ties. In memory of Iowa and New Hampshire traditions for going first, and in an attempt at a cut-and-dried and impersonal way of doing this, I picked "the 9 US states with 8 to 10 districts in each". Each committee seat will caucus 7 to 9 others, who are all in-state. These states do have some distribution to the four corners of the country. With the representatives of each state being caucused by the one that goes, over 80 representatives are involved. Among 436 not yet organized people, this is a quick way to put up a representative committee.

I kept the required general support down to majority level, because they're got such a strongly representative 9-seat committee, and this is just to draw the regions, and so I don't think the committee has to be strongly checked; I think the majority support just makes it "checked".

The National Assembly starts out with all freshman representatives who are new to each other. They begin without assembly rules, which is not much to start with, for all that they need to build. The above procedure could be used to divide the country into grids that would equal a nice number of committee seats (like 7, or 9). This is to help them make committees and move along easier at the start.

At the start, I think they could make a 21-seat committee, which is the square root of 441, which is a number I like to use here, and the purpose of this big committee would be to draft our starting set of national bylaws. If there were 21 regions of about 21 districts each, then one from each would staff the committee, and they could caucus, or actively delegate for the other representatives of their region. Such regions could also come to be 21-district areas for meetings on such a scale. 7 x 3 is 21, and 21 x 21 is 441. 7 areas with 3 regions in each would yield 21 regions of roughly 21 districts each, and areas and regions could be readily used to source 7- and 21-seat committees.

A person might ask why geographically representative? In congress, representative committee seats include those made for democrats and republicans. Our business begins with claims, which require 2/3 support to proceed. We don't have a place for parties with preferential proposals (see part 2), because this is a common cause operation. Some people could even find party seats to be offensive in the face of who and what this is. This leaves us with using geographical areas to source representative committees. It distributes power in an impersonal way.

Secondly, the national assembly will conduct a majority vote as to whether to conduct the following starting procedure:

The National Assembly will create a National Ratification Committee, as staffed by delegates who will continue to causus any legislative constituents, and with 3/4 of its own support, this committee will present an original draft for all national bylaws, which may then be passed with 2/3 support of the National Assembly, as followed by majority support in each of 3/4 of district legislatures.

The reason why required district support is at majority, is because this is 436 new people, all locally elected, which is very supportive of the public trust in what they produce. The vote by district legislatures may be ceremonial, showing that the national body didn't try to pull a fast one on the districts, but good for posterity, because we did give the districts a chance to block it. I really would dread seeing an inability to pass a national set of bylaws. For more thoughts on this, one can refer back to the "nail-biting" affair which took place when ratifying the US Constitution.

Ongoing National Bylaws [before being rewritten]

National Bylaws may be amended with the support of 2/3 of the National Assembly, as followed by 7/12 support in each of 3/4 of district legislatures. [See part 2]

City, County, and State

We see and respond to government wrongdoings, but to be sure, they aren't just national. City, county, and state governments can have wrongdoings, too. If we can have offices corresponding to these jurisdictions, then they can lead on our business, corresponding to that jurisidiction. There can be the wrongs of the city, in which case an office may need to lead on its own business, and there can be interaction with it that is part of other, larger business being conducted, in which case it is a point of contact which serves a larger business area. I would say that the former is the one which needs to lead on business there, and the latter is the one that seems more like being assigned a city as a leader in some other, larger business area.

For these types of jurisdictions, there are the districts they are in, and these are the districts that can conduct joint operations to create jurisdictional offices.

City, County, and State offices, committees, funds, legislatures, etc., may correctly be amended with agreement by the districts they are altogether in.

There is the question of what legislative body runs the business of a city or state. A city can be smaller than a district, which has its own legislature. Perhaps members of this body could be assigned to the city, as well as being ward representatives, and their city business proposals could be voted on by the whole assembly.

A city could cross 5 districts, and so perhaps a joint committee would work well for creating offices, committees, etc. corresponding to the city. For large jurisdictions, this becomes a place to consider creating a legislature of its own, leading on business. Seeing this, there is looking at the joint committee as a legislature.

I expect that when a city is in all of one district and half of another, the two districts might agree to give 6 seats to the former, and 3 to the latter. By "correctly" I mean to say with agreement by the districts they are really altogether in, and how they are divvying it.

A Name

In terms of a name for all of this, I find it interesting to wonder what it actually is. I think it's thoroughly democratic, but this can be reflected by some other words in political architecture. For example, I think it is very much a "confederation" of autonomous districts. It is united across districts via a common definition, and common, linked business areas (which are next). I have thought of this as a united confederation of districts. I know this can sound flavorless, but it is a primary grassroots American structure; I think it is more profound than any political parties.

Intro To Part 2

Below is a simplified picture of the business process, with claims of wrongs and problems, business areas, and commitments to response. These are propositions for pre-defined types of "public business" amendments. There will also be our "operations" outside of "business". For example, keeping our own books, or advertising ourselves would be operations.

I have to say, in a town hall I went to, there were four main topics of concern and discussion. I see these as Business Areas (below). Business amendments are much thought out in advance, including time spent thinking about how the national assembly will use them (and also the districts).

There are various sectors and operations in all of government wrongdoing, and congress uses area committees to (help) cover the span. Our activities well-organize into similar areas, led by our area leaders. Here are some of the area bylaws from part 2:

Business Areas: With 2/3 support, this assembly may amend organizational public business areas, with parliamentary elements, such as offices, committees, and funds, for each area's leadership to independently administer its public business amendments and associated activities.

Any claim will be assigned to a business area within 60 days of its passage.

With a National Assembly: Within 30 days of the creation of any national assembly business area, and during its period of operation, each district is requested to have amended its own, corresponding point of area administration, to function as an open, ongoing administrative link between district members and national area leadership.

As a last note, part 2 has picked up an addendum for another type of business amendment, wherein parties to government wrongs may be amended, and this same business process can be aimed at them.

6/24: Business areas have been revised in Coalitions and Existing Orgs.

The Future

Today's politics appear to be run by corporate, and not only that, but transnationally so; these corporations are beyond countries. Our modern world includes a great deal of added corporate structure, and this has infiltrated our public structure. These are elitist top-down implementations. This is why a Western woke agenda is in local schools, the currency is being destroyed, and large numbers of migrants are being funneled into the country.

The democratic method checks man completely, and states to everyone in the population that they all have equal and fair access to the system. This is the truly universal method; it is inoffensive to all comers. Any character attacks waged against this method will not stand well. It is also a most mature recognition of our political reality. The democratic method (used by governments) is worthy of the greatest amount of political place and power. Democracy has always been a catch-all place, as the last refuge for all good people to make their stand.

From here, there is a starting set of democratic rules. People can say that they support what they see, and that may be taken to contribute to the public trust. I would be happy to check with anyone personally, on the phone, to add their name to a supporting list.

There is the matter of coming to agreements on the rules. I would guess there to be sources of wanting to contribute corrections or improvements, and with this assistance, perhaps the text can be amended, and more support can be added. I do think rule changes at this point will be relatively specific, compared to the more general definition we may already share.

For any support, or for anyone who wants to start a community, I will post articles for that, including what you write. This site can be a national access and connection hub. Please understand the importance of providing support, to make this real.

For organized people, there are many avenues of political action. This approach can be used to go head-to-head with a state government in all of its districts at the same time. This approach can be used in all city districts at the same time. We have 18 states where we can propose state constitutional amendments. We can operate in hundreds of cities at the same time. The idea I find interesting is for each of us to knock on doors in the areas where we live, introduce ourselves, and possibly hand out brochures.

6/8: “The future” continues with a brief on Strategies for Building.

6/24: A structure has been added in Coalitions and Existing Organizations.