Lateral Branches: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=== '''Summary''' === | === '''Summary''' === | ||
''Lateral Branches'' serve at the intersection of two ''Intrinsic Branches'', staffed by the experts with knowledge and experience in both areas of jurisdiction. | |||
Each Lateral Branch procedurally functions like any other | Each ''Lateral Branch'' procedurally functions like any other ''Branch'', with the addition that each ''Intrinsic Branch'' appoints a ''Delegate Team'' to represent their interests to the ''Lateral Branch''. Decisions made by the ''Lateral Branch'' for those issues intersecting under the ''Lateral Branch's'' jurisdiction are decided by a vote among the ''Delegate Team'' from each of the two represented ''Intrinsic Branches'' and the ''Branch Officials'' of the ''Lateral Branch'' itself. | ||
=== '''Vote Decisions''' === | === '''Vote Decisions''' === | ||
Voting decisions facing the the Lateral Branch outside of day-to-day operations are | Voting decisions facing the the ''Lateral Branch'' outside of day-to-day operations are calculated using the ''Aggregated Vote'' method. Each of these groups are considered equal when voting, so that means that each group of three gets one total vote towards the ultimate decision. | ||
For example, if Group A votes (yes, no, yes) = YES, and Group B votes (yes, no, yes) = YES, and Group C votes (no, no, no) = NO, then the final vote is YES. This method of tabulation is critical because if the total votes had been simply tabulated, it would have resulted in 4 votes for yes and 5 votes for no, with the final vote being NO, which is not accurate. | For example, if Group A votes (yes, no, yes) = YES, and Group B votes (yes, no, yes) = YES, and Group C votes (no, no, no) = NO, then the final vote is YES. This method of tabulation is critical because if the total votes had been simply tabulated, it would have resulted in 4 votes for yes and 5 votes for no, with the final vote being NO, which is not accurate. | ||
=== '''Practical Example''' === | === '''Practical Example''' === | ||
For a practical example of the need for and functioning of a Lateral Branch, consider the intersection of interests between the Defense and Justice | For a practical example of the need for and functioning of a ''Lateral Branch'', consider the intersection of interests between the ''Defense Branch'' and ''Justice Branch''. The intermediary would be the Defense-Justice ''Lateral Branch'' and would have experts in Liminal State and international law, as well as military procedures, procurement, etc. | ||
A decision before this ''Lateral Branch'' might be the question regarding the legality of blowing up an alleged drug runner's boat in international waters. The ''Delegate Team'' from the ''Defense Branch'' would likely not vote in favor of this action, but hypothetically if they did, then the ''Delegate Team'' from the ''Justice Branch'' would not, as the action is not justifiable under Liminal State or international law. That would leave the tie-breaker up to the vote from the ''Top Branch Officials'' of the ''Lateral Branch''. | |||
Whenever there is an ''Aggregate Vote'' as illustrated above, none of the individual voters are aware of anyone else's vote until all votes have been cast, and none of the groups will know the outcome of their groups own result, nor the ''Aggregate Vote'' results of the other groups until all votes have been cast. | |||
=== '''Reality and Purpose''' === | === '''Reality and Purpose''' === | ||
Due to this structure there will be many more ''Lateral Branches'' than ''Intrinsic Branches'', which means the ''Intrinsic Branches'' make decisions on those issues or regulations that fall specifically into their area of expertise, with all decisions and regulations on the fringes being decided in cooperation with the ''Lateral Branches''. | |||
The purpose of this structure is to provide independence to each | The purpose of this structure is to provide independence to each ''Branch'' to make the best choices using their unique expertise, while forcing the tangential decisions to go through ''Lateral Branches'', which check each ''Intrinsic Branch's'' power against the mutual interest of other ''Intrinsic Branches'' and the combined expertise of that ''Lateral Branch''. This puts the decision making into the hands of those experts best equipped to make tough decisions based on complicated matters, which is the definition of government work. | ||
=== '''Site Navigation''' === | === '''Site Navigation''' === | ||
Latest revision as of 20:02, 1 August 2026
Summary
Lateral Branches serve at the intersection of two Intrinsic Branches, staffed by the experts with knowledge and experience in both areas of jurisdiction.
Each Lateral Branch procedurally functions like any other Branch, with the addition that each Intrinsic Branch appoints a Delegate Team to represent their interests to the Lateral Branch. Decisions made by the Lateral Branch for those issues intersecting under the Lateral Branch's jurisdiction are decided by a vote among the Delegate Team from each of the two represented Intrinsic Branches and the Branch Officials of the Lateral Branch itself.
Vote Decisions
Voting decisions facing the the Lateral Branch outside of day-to-day operations are calculated using the Aggregated Vote method. Each of these groups are considered equal when voting, so that means that each group of three gets one total vote towards the ultimate decision.
For example, if Group A votes (yes, no, yes) = YES, and Group B votes (yes, no, yes) = YES, and Group C votes (no, no, no) = NO, then the final vote is YES. This method of tabulation is critical because if the total votes had been simply tabulated, it would have resulted in 4 votes for yes and 5 votes for no, with the final vote being NO, which is not accurate.
Practical Example
For a practical example of the need for and functioning of a Lateral Branch, consider the intersection of interests between the Defense Branch and Justice Branch. The intermediary would be the Defense-Justice Lateral Branch and would have experts in Liminal State and international law, as well as military procedures, procurement, etc.
A decision before this Lateral Branch might be the question regarding the legality of blowing up an alleged drug runner's boat in international waters. The Delegate Team from the Defense Branch would likely not vote in favor of this action, but hypothetically if they did, then the Delegate Team from the Justice Branch would not, as the action is not justifiable under Liminal State or international law. That would leave the tie-breaker up to the vote from the Top Branch Officials of the Lateral Branch.
Whenever there is an Aggregate Vote as illustrated above, none of the individual voters are aware of anyone else's vote until all votes have been cast, and none of the groups will know the outcome of their groups own result, nor the Aggregate Vote results of the other groups until all votes have been cast.
Reality and Purpose
Due to this structure there will be many more Lateral Branches than Intrinsic Branches, which means the Intrinsic Branches make decisions on those issues or regulations that fall specifically into their area of expertise, with all decisions and regulations on the fringes being decided in cooperation with the Lateral Branches.
The purpose of this structure is to provide independence to each Branch to make the best choices using their unique expertise, while forcing the tangential decisions to go through Lateral Branches, which check each Intrinsic Branch's power against the mutual interest of other Intrinsic Branches and the combined expertise of that Lateral Branch. This puts the decision making into the hands of those experts best equipped to make tough decisions based on complicated matters, which is the definition of government work.
Site Navigation
Continue Reading:
← Intrinsic Branches | Lateral Branches | Branch Leadership →
Site Map:
