Failure to resolve the issues defines Congressional dysfunction. The current method in which parties and candidates present the issues they wish to divide us on is obviously not geared to resolve those issues in a way that will satisfy the majority of those to be represented.
Before I retired one of the many occupations I held was as system engineer. Taking the components of a complete process, determining what was needed to enhance the system, all with the goal to put all elements in harmony to best produce the product or service intended. The main tool employed in this is known and employed by business as Project Management. In the military they apply it as the Principle of the Objective.
Whenever there is a Problem to solve, an Opportunity to explore or a Challenge to meet, that only defines the final outcome in a general way. The key first step is to then assemble all the stakeholders and determine and define a detailed final result that satisfies the majority of those involved. These end conditions are specific and measurable. So there is no doubt at the conclusion that the task is complete.
The stakeholders in the selection of those to represent us are all those that draw breath in each legislative district. Not just those of a certain political inclination or social status. Clearly currently the process has been corrupted by the cooperative two party agenda so that only those of a similar political sector are canvassed. So while it is good to have opposing perspectives offered, acting as if just getting the votes of a slightly bigger minority of the total then the one opponent allowed voters as a choice does not give a mandate. Yet the party line rule that gridlocks Congress these days would seem to indicate that those elected choose not to see it otherwise.
This campaign was built around establishing a better way to determine what will resolve issues. And is strongly committed to seeing those issues actually and finally resolved so that they do not show up the next election to divide us. To have all those to be represented identify the issues. And then, when all are collected, have the represented assign priority to them. Because of the extended failure to get the job done in Congress there is a backlog that requires that limited resources in terms of time and staff be prioritized. Of course, the more issues Congress actually resolves, the more time they will have to resolve even more issues.
The step that project management applies that those not interested in resolution avoid is to define in measurable specifics what establishes completion of the project. This campaign seeks to assemble from the input of the represented what will be those steps and stages.
Once you know precisely where you want to end up you can work out how to get from where you are to where to be. And know who has responsibility at what stage and what resources need to be applied and when. If your project was to build a skyscraper just dumping all the components in a pile on the site and have those who are suppose to build it show up after does not get the task done in anything like a usable manner.
A point I and my opposing candidates should be able to agree on is that we all seek to represent the same group of people. All those who reside in our district. So does it not make sense that we cooperate to collect that needed input? That we all make our campaign websites never ending Town Halls for the duration of the election. That we share our input. So that come election day voters are selecting between us for the best one to deliver on what they have set us out to achieve in DC.
The mechanism our founders gave us for operating our government was summed up as E Pluribus Unum. That from the many parts we bring forth one resolution, ending in generating only sound and just laws. So just as we as individual representatives come to DC with instructions assembled from the many we represent, so too should it go one more level when Congress convenes.
If the example we could set for others through cooperative campaigning here in the 2nd District takes hold, and the others elected to Congress have also done their homework, we could then combine the directives collected from all districts to establish the resolution that will satisfy the majority, this time of the nation. Does anyone really have an argument against such a process?
One point about resolving issues that should be kept in mind is that the selection of Supreme Court justices has become far mor political then it was ever intended to be. If issues that divide us are removed from the equation the selection of those who sit in the highest court are more likely to be made on merit and free of political influence. One wold hope.
To make this happen requires no new legislation get passed by that currently dysfunctional Congress. It only requires the public insist elections be done along these new lines.
Our founders certainly saw the need to embrace diversity when the started on the great experiment that is American Democracy. Again and again the phrases used in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence reinforce that. United States. More Perfect Union. We the People. E Pluribus Unum. And so many more.
But in these times we have seen tribal loyalty start to dominate over loyalty to country. The power struggle between the two major parties has given us a dysfunctional government. By their own scoring.
There is little doubt we will for some time see a Supreme Court salted with a one sided political perspective rather then the impartial one that our Senate is suppose to see are seated. The issues that they will decide upon are promised to be ones that set back the very advancements that have made us, once upon a time, the beacon for human rights.
In many ways this could be considered another too much of a good thing situation. There is a place for a conservative perspective. As well as a Liberal one. But in proper proportions.
As this is not an ideal world then the new question that comes to me is what can be done to counter this lack of balance. Other parts of this site deal with my idea of cooperative campaigning to get the exceptional representation into Congress that the next generation of voters demand. Ones that will resolve issues.
Presuming that step is accomplished the best course for avoiding having the courts decide human rights issues for us is to resolve those issues through productive legislation. And if done under the guidelines I have laid out, that legislation will resolve issues to the satisfaction of the majority.
There is no need for new laws to accomplish the implementation of this result focused approach. It just requires that the majority of the politically involved demand better of those who seek to represent them and are responsible for accomplishing these very things when elected.