The Nature Of Simultaneous Campaigns
This is an example of writing to accompany the development of a set of bylaws, as introduced in the paper How To Fix The Government. In this, there is an attempt to characterize a running system, and speak to its related concerns.
In accounting for a few variables, in current affairs, and in the imagined options for proposals, I will reflect upon what simultaneous campaigns may be like.
There is a need for the legislature to propose and vote for each campaign and campaign amendment. I would first envision a place for the existence of multiple campaigns, across a variety of government operations and sectors. There may be support for campaigns in medicine, agriculture, banking and finance, or for specific operations, such as the government's handling of 9/11, or of Ukraine. A campaign could be made to respond to parts of the pandemic that constitute their own operations, such as the vaccination program itself, or to the handling of the pandemic altogether.
A campaign states its area of concern, and may amend stated objectives within its area. An implied objective of any campaign is to end any of its cited claims. With or without amended objectives, a campaign would have its own leadership and fundraising, and may always propose and carry out redress actions in its stated area, for the purpose of ending any of its underlying claims. An example of an objective might be to end a particular type of harm perceived to be taking place, or to remove or implement a particular element of law. A proposition to conduct a redress action may then be said to serve a campaign, or campaign objective.
Defining Campaigns
The first place I see for the political process of campaigns is to face a disagreement as to what constitutes the area of a proposed campaign. Using the pandemic management area as an example, some might want the vaccines to be the area of a more focused campaign, while others might want all of pandemic management to be addressed by one campaign.
This is why I would make campaigns as amendable to follow as they are to start. To define a campaign in the area of the covid vaccines is an amendment, to redefine it to cover a larger area is another amendment, and to break a larger campaign into smaller ones is yet another amendment. By remaining as flexible as possible this way, the matter is reduced to the legislature getting along well enough to define its campaign areas, with the promise of future amendment. It will be in their best interest for any existing claims to be picked up by the existing campaigns.
There is more room for volatility in a campaign definition, because it is more subjective than a claim proposal, which is expected to be more unanimous in agreeing upon what is being said. This is why I would bring required campaign support down to 3/5, in relation to the 2/3 or more that should be required for claims. The legislature will be held to move forward and create campaigns against existing claims by member demand. A safety provision could be included to say, for example, that any claim passed must be cited by a campaign within ninety days.
Member Support
Member support is an important part of campaign support. There is the vote of the legislature to support the respectability of the campaign. Then there are members personally listing the campaigns they support. By rule, they could each list up to one, two, three, or more. The number that each member may list will have an impact on how much support each of a number of campaigns may have.
We'll use five existing campaigns as an example. If each member lists one campaign, then the average member support per campaign will be 20%. If each member lists two, then the average support per campaign will rise to 40%, and if each member lists three, then the average will rise to 60%. If we move to ten existing campaigns, then each member listing three will yield an average campaign support of 30%.
Individual member campaign support, like member voting, should be private. It is expected that members are listing the campaigns that they would be most open to participating in. I think donations should be receivable on a per-campaign basis, as well as by the organization as a whole. I see the nature of a campaign as including what it is made of, including its human and other resources. These seem like very grassroots resources, which no one in a democracy can shake a stick at.
Faction By Campaign
When starting out backed by claims that have received at least 2/3 support, I see no reason for members to oppose the stuff of a campaign. The democratic resources of each campaign are not to be taken exception to; they express the will of their participants; their claim is to end universal claims.
I view factions arising in the form of members who want their favorite campaigns to receive all of the resources. What I find most oppositional to this is for each campaign to really be comprised of its own resources.
I do think campaigns should have a place to take pride in themselves, build their own dream teams, and to possibly even have their own parades. I also think it will be in their best interest to be attractive, and not unlikable, to win more, and bring in more resources.
All campaigns share a common opposition. When it is seen, in the activity surrounding one campaign, for any prescient act of establishment opposition to take place, it rallies us all. These more universal forces can apply to everyone in the organization, and can contribute to a more universal priority. Really, shared information serves a more shared perspective, and I think the more pertinent information includes all of the legislature material.
To remain open to all of the voters, those who hold elected offices will want to remain open to all supported campaigns. A common view of all currently running campaigns is how the current legislative material will be organized, and this will be help to reinforce one's sense of the organization overall.
Vying For National Resources
The existence of a common pool of resource, such as national funds, can lend itself to competition between campaigns over gaining those resources. To what extent these resources exist, I think the legislature should decide on allocations to campaigns, which would be outside of any ongoing costs of running the organization when it has no campaigns. This is why I think any donor should have the option of directing their donations to campaigns, or to the organization as a whole.
Campaign Leadership
It is anticipated that districts and states will be amending national campaigns to themselves. Perhaps some would like to arrange themselves differently. What if a district created a national campaign within itself? I think that within itself it could carry that campaign out. Next, the national body could come along and amend a campaign in the same area. At this point, the district could amend their campaign structure to align with that of the national body.
At the hands of their legislatures, each district (and state) could elect leadership, which would plug into the national hierarchy, for those domains (or jurisdictions) that have the same campaign(s). I see a question with much of the work being done here as to what kind of leadership structure any given campaign should have (see Federalist 70). I think a domain or jurisdiction's campaign could have a director, or a council/committee. When a given domain amends a campaign, it can amend its definition of its leadership structure; whether it be a director or committee. There can then be a standard election process to fill the defined seats.
Campaign leadership is imagined to function in an administrative capacity, and makes propositions, where needed, for its own redress and campaign amendments. The legislature is expected to do the voting. The legislature may also make proposals for campaign amendments, which gives it power over all campaigns, or possible campaign factions. Types of redress that are amended as generally accepted proceed under the direction of campaign leadership.
Campaign Work
I imagine any elected official constitutes an office, within which there may be the recruitment of members as worker-volunteers. Treating a campaign the same way, by the discretion of its elected leadership, a campaign could create work projects within and servicing of itself.
ADDED 3/28 from original Claims and Redresses:
In addition to what has been said, everyone who takes membership in this organization knows themself and everyone else as having signed up for the same thing, which is to monitor for and redress government injustices. Our most common point of bonding with each other it to bear some kind of claim, or claims. This is universally what we know about ourselves and each other, prior to knowing one another in person. It is the truth before knowing one another particularly, and so it is a more universal level of bonding.
I also anticipate that campaign events may draw members who are not supporting those campaigns directly, but who would like to join in, or provide support. This means people would be crossing campaign lines, which would be supportive of a more universally-natured organization. Overall at this point, I see a universal nature reflecting a conspiring number of causes.