Since there has never been anything like this - a simple solution based on what exists, that will call on its capable people to reverse historic norms in power relations between government, various strata’s of society and the people; we think it is safe to say that it's as different as can be. If by now you have studied just some of the materials available, this question has hopefully been answered. With the FAQ’s and elsewhere, this question will continually be responded to from the many angles it supports. In any event let’s take a quick look at what biased, careless thinking might have this misunderstood as, and draw the distinctions. A get out the vote effort; This is not in any way a "get out the vote effort" although, in the end, its ability to affect the change we demonstrate is possible does require that in several ways we show up:

• We do this by first being registered and verified as a member within this system and therefore – crucially - a super voter.
• For that status to endure will require that people operate within this network and ultimately vote in nominating and general elections.
• But to start and be verified as a WeLeadUSA member you do not have to be registered to vote. However, in order to vote in actual elections and so exercise and maintain that power, enough of us must be; and of course already are.
• Registering to vote and declaring party affiliation - where necessary (often it is not) - involves simple rules and actions that operate at your state and local level; these are very small matters of detail and would have no effect on the impact and power of the registration and constituency building process; that is immediate and organic.

With that said, the solution we advocate absolutely requires and works in perfect harmony with get out the vote efforts. Therefore we expect the mechanisms necessary to get people equipped, educated, registered, and out to vote on all election days, to be an important part of the interactions - and partnerships – that must be built into this network. Primary voting; in its current form – Mark Twain once said, "If voting mattered they wouldn't let you do it". He was quite right, but he said that decades before these powers of open ballot access and nominations were made lawful civic rights, nationally. Due to our neglect however, his axiom – unfortunately – remains true as well as a self-fulfilling prophecy. But it doesn't have to be this way. With even a cursory review of these materials one can see the evolutionary departure from the status quo that is possible with the approach being advocated. An in-depth review will make it exceedingly clear that with just a few simple steps an entirely new ballgame is within reach. Bottom line...this is totally different from anything ever suggested; much less attempted!

In the age of legalized propaganda, high-tech astroturfing, and all the others means of media, elite, and party manipulation, this question is very important. Central to understanding the course of action recommended here is that the power of an implemented Citizens Access Network rests first on the organizing of actual people; not virtual identities. Simply by registering, district by district, where we live and vote we create visible constituency binding us to ALL of the many elected officials who would have to answer to us IF we were so organized and so visible. Without this there can be nothing! - Because actions in this space will necessarily be public, the basic social controls of human interaction – like shame, isolation, and ridicule – are tools easily deployed against the unreasonable. User members will decide what constitutes bad behavior; and then moderate. Sanctions, rewards, and other appropriate carrots and sticks exist and are available for immediate use while others will be developed to meet emerging needs. - Further means of mediation and moderation oversight will be applied to all the forums we’d develop, be they on line or off; and depend on both human and technological interventions. - As to possible bad behavior by "insider groups" that we believe there is no defense against: for example the major political parties? - Therefore, simple and totally private verification of identity and address will be the first line of defense against abuses of all kinds. It is this process that will parse and construct the voting district making it a visible constituency. There can be no order within - or power attached to - any assembled population if there is no authenticity; which will require basic authentication. - Because broadcast advertising would and could play no part in the media design of the network – there are no commercials to buy; the money-media-election complex methods of sound bite manipulation are rendered useless. - Because we would be organized as the country is organized – by where we live and vote - it would be rather impossible - and quite detectable if attempted – to move whole populations into new areas in order to affect outcomes. - With these dynamics in play, individuals, groups, and major players all can come, (and will have to come or suffer zero influence) but, they can come armed only with the merits of their arguments and proposals; there is simply no influence to peddle or buy. Yes, but aren’t the “powers that be” too strong? Won’t they use all that’s at their disposal to stop us? If one believes the problem lies only with issues of random foolishness or “run-amokism”, the intelligent, well planned response will be sufficient because there is no centralized plan of control to resist; only stupidity. However, if one believes the problem does lie with a capable adversary bent on control it should be asked; if it’s clear that you are better equipped than that adversary, would you suggest surrender because there will be resistance? Just some of the means to check - and neutralize - the power of those who might try to undermine these efforts are mentioned above and they will work. However, opposition - of some kind - will be encountered whether it comes from clever controllers or a clueless officialdom. Further, anything that forces overt acts of nastiness is a victory because it will expose true motives, draw clear lines and perhaps, even awaken the deeply asleep; exactly what a clever adversary would try to avoid at all costs. An attitude of mindless defeatism makes no sense if one is complaining and there has proven to be a way out; you can’t have it both ways! If we are going to live in the real world these are the choices; either accept defeat and (please) shut up, or do something…but, not just anything.

The "masses" have never been deliberately/deliberatively decisive in any society’s political direction; that is simply not possible. They can only react; when it’s already too late. Messy! It is therefore the job of the capable people to ensure it doesn’t come to that. Sure, it would be great for everyone to care - and be capable – but it is absolutely unnecessary to stable, meaningful change for that to be the case. Since only small percentages of the populations will seek "active engagement", and since only such small populations are necessary to affect our all-powerful ballot access/nominating process, by simply using the Citizens Access Network, things change; a lot! This means relatively small numbers of committed people who are already participating, or interested in using what freedoms we have left wisely, can be decisive. Consequently, there should be no concerns about how realistic or pragmatic this approach is because it not a quantity game; it’s a quality game and that starts with just getting those of us already "there" organized and capable of to action! No utopian movements born of "unity" or "the crowd" are necessary. The qualitative participation of existing populations of concerned citizens - or just incremental increases of such participation – will be more than enough to allow big things to happen. This important truth is fully documented throughout these pages. We must never forget that past and present, the entirety of our electoral process are essentially conducted in a vacuum. As there is no central home to which we can go and manage these affairs, we flail about disconnectedly. This leaves us to the forces of the money-media-election complex and our own inertia; ensuring failure. Therefore, the media-filtering- power-proximity, and competition inciting elements being proposed here begin by simply getting these activities under one specially purposed roof that will direct sunlight. Unprecedented, that alone will change everything. Moreover, once people with lesser degrees of committed interest see the more committed people with higher degrees succeeding, more will come to register - and so strengthen the networks power dynamics - as well as participate in the greater processes it supports. Bottom line; if just enough of us, the "capable people" - who are already concerned and engaged - gather and work together as proposed, the buck will stop with us. What more can a free people ask?

Plenty and No, but...If there is any doubt remaining about the combustive, paradigm shifting power of this device — particularly now, in the age of the Internet and social networks — consider the fact that the parties themselves more covertly, or proxies within the money-media-election-complex more overtly, use ballot access/the primary vote as an ever-present threat against elected officials they can target...should they “need too”. This should tell you all you need to know. The term that's recently been coined for this phenomenon is "Primaried", but it has always existed. In an effort to reform this imbalance, the power to nominate was handed over to the people with the hope that the power of ballot access could no longer be used to control elected officials and that allegiances would shift from the bosses and machines to the voting public. However, since the people have not used this responsibility very well or wisely a different type of machine developed; one that still very effectively controls ballot access. This allows our current party system to quietly/covertly threaten an incumbent elected official with competition - or withdrawal of support - for the party nomination if for whatever reason there is unhappiness with that individual; (they are not a good fundraiser, they make too much trouble etc. etc.) hence they are subject to being primaried from within. More publicly, we can also see the vacuum our absence creates used by proxy groups that can threaten and control our electoral sphere with this power from without: For the moment inactive there was; primaryyourcongressman.com (Club for growth-Grover Norquist’s group) Then there was the "reaction"; Super PAC, Defending Main Street; (To "Primary" back the Primarieder??) UGH! And also based on the principle of targeting "undesirables" there is this group. Unfortunately all of these efforts are punitive and in no way attempts to build around this most powerful device the means to involve our people, to work holistically, at all levels of government and to bring our system into representative balance. It should however demonstrate the power and opportunity that has not only been left to rot, but to be used as a more effective and destructive form of control than any other that came before it; an excellent example of what havoc absentee management will wreak. This organization, that also featured former U.S. Senator Olympia Snow, made a lot of noise about the importance of the primaries and how – for the greater good - they were going to get “grass roots” on it (with the misdiagnosis of low-turnout their focus). We haven’t heard much since then. Perhaps we’ve missed it. The research conducted here highlights many luminaries acknowledging how important, misunderstood and underutilized our nominating process is. What they mostly neglect that cannot be neglected is the role that a unrestrained media plays in these dysfunctions and how all the negative dynamics are enabled by what lacks; namely a civic roof under which the citizenry can operate. For a more scholarly review, this excellent piece of political science really hits the nail on the head. All of this should answer any questions as to the importance, and misuse, of the precious and hard won tools of our modern republic. It should also tell us that no one is going to do anything with or about this. UNLESS IT’S US!

As is emphasized throughout, if we show up "they" show up! The "they's" are many (chiefly the "government beyond") but, in this case, we are talking specifically about our elected representatives and the political parties; major or minor. Should this audience assemble, any/all aspiring or incumbent elected officials will have to come through them; as they will be visible, coherent, and backed by the central authority that does, and always has powered our electoral politics which is the foundation of our constitutional system; they are inseparable. Therefore it will be the most powerful audience ever assembled and the few in number who are necessary to force these dynamics has been exhaustively documented. Further, the major (and minor) political parties will be subject to the dynamics this platform will create no less than individuals who hold or seek office. Because our citizens will become the driving force of the ballot access and nominating processes – fundamental assets and functions that have generally been controlled by the parties – the parties will lose their power and allegiances will shift rapidly and profoundly. This will change the form and substance of our political parties as a new design emerges. However, this has always been possible and was the intent of the reforms that brought popular elections for the nominations to our system. As stressed here throughout, the political parties enjoy very little raw power in our system. The fact that the overwhelming majority of elections held in the United States require neither candidate nor voter to affiliate should attest to that; most of our elections are run on an "un-partisan basis"!

Anyone who doesn’t participate, anyone who refuses to cooperate, anyone who refuses to come through this network denies and defies their constituency and so, WILL LOSE! That changes everything; simple.

Yes. Some 11 of these dysfunctions are documented in the “Distortions” video series available on part five slide five of the web site. In fact it is demonstrated that no element of the current system would be left unaffected; should the people assemble and act within the framework suggested. What has been made clear is that the neglect of our nominating and ballot access powers is actually the chief enabler of the modern expression of ALL these distortions. Our absence from these functions leaves a vacuum that ensures this power will only be used for punitive and controlling purposes. Therefore, perhaps counter-intuitively, both the problem and the solution lie within it. For example, and again perhaps counter to intuition, it is not first the money that creates the entrenched incumbency; it is the lack of genuine competition within the ballot access and nominating process. What is important here is that people can do something about this; directly and decisively. Once the great potential for principled electoral competition is enabled, so are many other things. The ability for visible and coherent constituencies to penetrate, supervise and shine the light ensures that problems like revolving doors and ethical issues soon will be a thing of the past. Transparency is not difficult to get when allegiances have shifted to the public and matters that were previously obfuscated are dealt with publicly Redistricting is another misunderstood problem. The issue is not first that districts will not elect one or the other party because of how they’re drawn; the issue is that such districts will never create competitive dynamics at the nomination level. For the dominant party, this helps to ensure the incumbent has a safe seat from "within" so long as he is safe. Since competitive dynamics are discouraged and controlled, the residual effects ensure that when such an incumbent is challenged for the nomination (many and most are not in any serious way) the benefits and assets the incumbent has accrued assures he will make quick work of his rivals. This is a problem that exists in all elections - whether or not party affiliation is in play - and cannot be solved without the roof. However, that bad is greatly compounded when one considers that the *minority party of that district will likely never field serious candidacies, offer principled alternatives or truth; at either the nominating or general election tier of the system. This makes for many potential elections and rather trite and, perhaps even dissembling affairs, on the occasions there might be. This is a problem the redistricting literature mentions only in passing on the very rare occasions it does. Moreover, if one is only concerned about having a 50-50 chance of electing one or the other party in the general election, they have missed the entire point of the redistricting issue. And, this is exactly what has happened. Most all of the advocacy directed at redistricting complains about a safe seat for one or the other party and reports that a crisis. But, if there are few substantive differences between those parties - given how representatives are nominated and elected - it would matter very little if those elections were “competitive”. These are the true driving forces and the real crisis of our system; that no general election for leaders or new-fangled ballot initiatives will ever solve. The general elections certainly are and should be important but they are made something very much less when there is no competition at the granular level of the ballot access and nominating process. It is tantamount to a ladder with it first several rungs missing. General elections are indeed meaningless; if the nominating process has been ignored because the game will have already been decided! As documented, the approach proposed here will in fact create principled competition at all levels - all the time - and thus create great proximity to our elected officials and their operating environment. When there is proper participation at the first tier level, these and many other distortions fade as we durably rebalance power structures in our system and society. * (as the dynamics transcend parties, in elections where the parties play no role- substitute the term challengers for minority party)

A telling example of this mind-set is the emphasis of the public, and of the reformers, on our political parties. Some of this focus shows up in demands for a third-party, or for an “ease on restrictions” regarding ballot access for other parties. Many concerns about the logic and veracity of this advocacy are raised here and represent a major focus of this work. Important to note is the great misunderstanding about what these parties really are. Commonly regarded as monolithic powers, they are actually a very loose and changeable association of disparate, localized groups that mostly have very little money and little raw power to speak of. Ballot access is open, therefore the voter decides who can get and stay on ballots throughout the electoral process; with the party having no veto power to exercise. Under circumstances where the parties can only be what the people allow them to be, it seems more than a little misguided to be concerned about these entities - and advocate for more of them - instead of organizing in ways that will see them both managed and changed. Broadly speaking, we can call these other cases ‘reform efforts; though the pervasive use of law-suits should also be included in this review. While these efforts are perhaps well-intentioned, they inherently depend on the current system to correct itself. Further, such actions are complex, lengthy affairs that would likely be quite watered and narrowed down at the end of a very drawn out process. In the unlikely event they did "succeed", they likely would fail; as evidenced by the many cases where the failure of such successes has been documented. This poor record however seems to have little impact on the attitudes of the advocates pursuing these actions who persistently and continually back them. We maintain that laws, law suits, reforms, and amendments should be pursued only when absolutely necessary and mostly be culminating events; earned through the intelligent use of the organization and existing power available in our system. If you are depending on a dysfunctional politics and people, operating within a dysfunctional system, to pass or enforce laws that will create genuine and sustainable high functioning change…you have it backwards. Moreover, it has been the central argument of the contributors that our real problem does not lie with having too few legal actions, or laws; or parties and politicians seeking their power and prestige! Primarily, the problem lies in two things: The refusal of civil society to see the people, themselves, as the direct solution. With no coherent, powerful, assemblage of the people, nothing will ever change. And in parallel, it lies with the age old model of media – the true public square - that separates media and information systems from an ability to act with spontaneous authority; as effective, informed and powerful citizens. These are the chief enablers; the genuine problem that first requires a solution; and the Citizens Access Network provides it!

A petition, e mail, or any other form of communication has the potential to be a great tool of power projection but, as currently conceived, these “having your say” type efforts can have no genuine impact; nor can they make lasting change to our structural problems. Making no provision for organizing power, they are simply incapable of penetrating hierarchies and shifting allegiances. They will be rightfully perceived as the work of amateurs. Their great weakness is that they can only be directed to one issue or cause and not address or affect a system as a whole. Further, rarely are such demands directed to appropriate decision makers and strategic in nature. Thus, on the occasion one such effort succeeds in getting the attention of those in power, it is unlikely to be sustained or instill permanent fear or respect in those being petitioned; which is essential. The best you can get is a bone thrown your way, perhaps a stray battle won, but no more; that is beggary no less than protest signs are! Further, such on-line driven efforts serve to create a dynamic of "slackstivism"; the feeling that with a click ones civic duty has been done. Our current political-media-electoral systems operate in a wide open expanse – a wild west – where media systems are completely unconnected to our civic authority. Under these circumstances no sustained presence of a deliberative citizenry can be assembled and the people will always lack for coherence. Without that, the projecting of any power is not possible. More will be needed to gain control of our political system and public sphere. That will require a defined and specially purposed network tool, built like the country, where those who hold elected office will be strongly tied to a visible constituency who first are THEIR NOMINATORS; not a faceless theoretical entity to whom they owe nothing! Establishing that makes unquestionable the people’s ability to project grant or deny power and that control of our elected officials can then be parlayed into all the network will be purposed to deliver: coalitions, knowledge-media, and a high functioning republic.

For most of those aspiring to elective office to have a chance under current electoral methods many assets that can only be provided (packaged) by the existing power structure are needed. This would include the front–running of party approval, i.e. the media’s imprimatur of electability, money, ballot access/organization, political consultants, polling data and many other tools that do little to further the interests of the country or the constituency. Moreover, the needs create weaknesses; that can be exploited.

In the open environment of the network proposed, potential candidates and their constituents can meet to create many forums in pursuit of common objectives. With the many possible interactions documented – and many more possible to develop – it should be clear that such assets will lose their relevance; as would the complex that bestows them. There need be no concerns about “name recognition” or staffing and advertising costs. Tactics like opposition research and hot button idiocy would not only become unnecessary, their use in any campaign would be dangerous and foolhardy. Supporters can be found, political organizations built, and messages fashioned and delivered, all pretty much free. Free in the monetary sense and free from the many other constraints that bind negative alliances and create the distortions of our current system. No longer will the current money driven resources be necessary; or even desirable. The goodwill and strong-ties that will develop between candidates and their visible constituents – and between the user-members themselves - will drive issues, principled competition - and candidacies - every day as elections become culminating events of an ongoing process; that is the electoral landscape. Further, the discourse and foundation of substance that will necessarily be established through that everyday process - captured as and driven by the new media this will create - will ensure that there can be no going back; these influences will certainly seep down into all corners of our society. This ensures that when attention shifts from first tier electoral activities to general elections, we will find an enduring foundation of realism that will transcend this network infusing everything; everywhere such matters are considered. For these reasons and others, the money will buy nothing, thereby rendering it meaningless. Further, as this network would be owned, funded and managed by its public; it will be –perpetually - a fully transparent and conflict of interest free environment.

Absolutely not! Electoral rules and elections themselves are formulated and conducted at the state/local level. Electioneering is simply the means by which the public engages aspiring or incumbent elected officials in electoral processes. Given the present mind-set and methods these activities do no more than produce content leading to the singular, isolated act of casting a mass, derivative vote; performed on an election day. The aim must be to change the foundation of our electoral processes and create a medium for the ultimate power of self-government our constitutional system was based and built on. This authority cannot be left of the stuff of an afterthought! Understanding these activities holistically, as an electoral landscape, allows the medium to form as we leverage:

• The organic, self-organizing principles of voting districts
• The power to nominate: all elected officials, at all levels, in all election cycles
• The networking power of the Internet

In order to end the era of money-media-election complex dominance, we must overturn the failed model of the "single author broadcasting" that remains unchanged and unchanging; despite the 'digital revolution' and the advent of so called alternative media. Without a workable media, nothing can work and our current - and sole - media model will not serve the needs of constitutional republic that is dependent on the medium that elections were meant to and must be. On-line voting - which this effort is not advocating – is not at all the same thing as creating that medium which would allow the processes of electioneering to be engaged in the specially purposed environment of the Citizens Access Network.

The interactions that are possible, the look/feel, process and flow are demonstrated on these screens and deeper explanations are offered with a click on the overlay displays. The powerful forms of genuine new media and commanding interactions the Citizens Access Network enables amongst all the stakeholders can be well understood by taking that tour. However, the full capabilities of such a network can only be built and evolve over some time and that can happen only if the concerned/capable public demands it. Therefore, it is imperative that the simple, but for some, elusive connections of this proposal be made; first and foremost connecting this proposed network to the civic architecture of the United States. Then, connecting those two pillars of foundation to a genuine strategy makes it’s simple and clear how the network can begin; and have major impact from the start. By pursuing those strategies and tactics - immediately available and succinctly detailed in the "Strategy and Tactics" section - we can infuse that demand with the considered action that has been so lacking; and without which there will be nothing.

The concepts described in the Media Center and Network Displays are designed only to demonstrate the platform that is possible to create in the unparalleled "fusion" environment where media and civic action meet. It has always been considered that the ideas outlined in this content - and these pages throughout - offer only a down payment on what is possible, and expect that they’d grow and change as input from all stakeholders is presented. What’s being suggested here - "ground floor" - would be an unprecedented level of user-member participation in the development and purposing of this network. As the Citizen’s Access Network is conceived as a wholly publicly owned and operated institution, when operational, the subject matter, and the forums that will process it, will be of the participants making. Site structure, content, format, operations, all of it, will develop with the considered input of all. Now that’s entertainment! Now, knowledge is power!

With a fully resourced Citizen’s Access Network, partnership between - and the fusion of - the people and media IS the model; and it can take many forms. A central argument made here throughout is that there can be no hope for any good to come unless:

• We create a specially purposed form of media that serves genuine understanding in the domain of civics and public policy
• That understanding is then deliberatively processed into actionable form
• Those efforts and actions are tethered to meaningful civic power and spontaneous authority; the power to initiate

Under prevailing circumstances that is not possible because there is no path – or intention - for it to happen. Media and citizen responsibility for the oversight of public affairs are central and inseparable pillars of a high functioning republic. As they are currently disconnected and uncoordinated, very harmful effects result. They must be tamed; that however is not possible if they are treated separately as has always been the case. As the contributors have pointed to throughout; what good may be found in our current media sphere can find no traction and therefore is useless. Even the best media – and its producers - be it journalism, blogs, books, scholarship - contributors and experts of various stripes - all will find their crucial work lost in the vast expanse of today’s saturation media - because it is attached to nothing. But, delivering truly interactive and collaborative media to the informed and politically powerful audience of the Citizens Access Network ensures that both excellent media will be made, and that the learning and knowledge imparted can be acted upon.

This will allow the best of these forms of media to meet the best of the people as the fusion dynamics of the network takes hold; this will create something entirely new in terms of electoral politics, public policy, civics and society etc. Nevertheless, there is no question that media will continue to be media, and in its vastness serve those specialized segments who it will serve. The important thing to remember here is that this is no zero sum, win or lose game. Rendering unto the rest of the media universe what is theirs presents no conflict with the work of this enterprise. That also includes the media universe that does concern itself with these matters. Here again, there is no conflict as this network will simply be the place where things come and actual work gets done; by those who want to do it. No doubt this would have a pretty big impact on those media players outside the network BUT, for the better. As things get real, the media operating outside of this network will have very much more interesting things to contribute, analyze and discuss and that influence will be mutually reinforcing and important. Perhaps the axiom of a rising tide lifting all boats is appropriate here.

As the contributors have said throughout, if we show up, they show up! All serious producers of media and purveyors of knowledge will be welcome, and in fact be important to this cause. Whether the status is for-profit or nonprofit, major outlet, big name, established freelance or aspiring journalist, scholar, author- famous or aspiring, “whistle-blower”; what have you. We think it is important that line between media producer and citizen continue to evolve and this network would ensure its serious and beneficial evolution; something that today is very much in question. For example, in this environment people will be willing to make contributions who would never have previously thought it worth their while or would have had the chance to share their expertise. Whether it’s the involvement of medical or insurance professionals offering input based on their experiences to those conversations, or whether it is the police officer or sanitation worker making a contribution based on theirs; there will be unprecedented opportunities to make new, genuine and broadly based media – that will also be highly focused. As different people with different skills and interests come together, the input, information, and authority amassed and shared will create finished media of a completely original variety- that goes somewhere. All have their important contributions to make and we believe they will want to make them because their work will not go unnoticed or unrewarded. Their knowledge and insights will be delivered to the most powerful audience ever assembled, us; it will matter!

Any type of civic action directed at solving our nation’s problems must understand the system it’s operating in and trying to change. The contributors have attempted to draw attention to the deficit of analysis in our approach to "change actions" by looking at the recurrent failures of public problem solving and the advocates who populate this arena. No question we/they are on a treadmill of futility! What is being proposed here must be understood within the framework of the American electoral system, the political science of it if you will, in order for its power as a solution to be grasped. Understanding the importance of our "first tier" electoral machinery - ballot access and party nominations to stand for office - and their processes is more than essential. To gain full command on just how much power our citizenry possesses, and how much potential there is (and is lost) for a completely different path in all of this, these things must be considered. However, this knowledge is simply that; an educational component of the effort. It enables what we are suggesting here to be feasible, and meaningful, and it must be understood in those terms. Without these elements in place and immediately available, this proposal could not legitimately exist. (We’d have to be fighting for these tools – the rights - instead of just using them) Why? Because, if we exercise a vote only in general elections – as we once had to and how most of the rest of the world does - others will decide who is on the electoral ballot. At that point it’s too late to gain access and exercise influence as a derivative, mass general election vote can only reduce the status of the citizen to that of a bystander. This is because the parties, candidates etc. - the political establishment - will agree on what is important to them, not us. As a result the entire electoral process is rendered a farce. Although that is the state of things today, it is the case only because of our absence. With the coherent presence of the citizenry established, all the interactions and media the Citizens Access Network makes possible will be recognized as power. When operating within this network – upon a simple registration - user-members will be understood as super-voters; an animal so important, yet elusive, that he/she must be sought out and manipulated by our politics at great expense and in every sense. The power of that association is described very specifically and also permeates these pages throughout. But, once understood, it simply becomes part of the background as the "terms" will now be clear and understood by all the players. These are simple things and all that’s necessary for the political science to meet the people science and get us off the treadmill. With that we move beyond the typical model of phony “engagement” into the realm of indisputable political power with great proximity, access and control over our elected representatives and public policy. The fusion of network and media simply shape and channel this citizen-electoral power with care and responsibility.

No. The daily work and discourse that surrounds our country, from the county level to the top, is inseparable from electoral processes and politics. That should be obvious, but we are conditioned to believe otherwise as our media remains a separate pillar from civic actions/institutions. This is one of two central reasons why “the people” have been unable to exercise positive influence and so, have no control over their destinies. The policies that are discussed and laws that are enacted every day in all the city halls, statehouses and the federal congress affect all of us, every day; from the roads we drive on, to the schools we send our children to, to issues of public health and to where we send our armies and why. And, in light of saturation media and public focus on major politicians and events, every day is already that derivative toothless election day; the energy and time is being expended! However, what drives such decision making we are no part of! Nevertheless, these daily activities should involve regular and structured treatment that results in high level communications and clear decision making processes between our citizens, elected officials- and with them the government beyond. It is only by creating such an ecosystem that election day can become the culminating event of an on-going process of eternal vigilance, executed by highly motivated and informed citizens; the medium of the electoral landscape this network will create. But, in order to do this we must be aware that when it comes to destinies, public officials will always be sensitive to those who control theirs. Here, who that could and should be has been firmly established; but the leverage the public owns must be used. As to those citizens less inclined to take a hearty interest in these affairs, they still have a very important role to play and need not be wasted. They too can enjoy use of the network; perhaps more closely aligned to coming elections. Their presence, simply as registrants and super voters, will provide great weight to this assembly and its work as the Citizens Access Network does its job. At times of their choosing, they will be able the leverage the careful analysis derived from the activities of their more engaged fellow citizens, that is unfiltered and belonging to no special interests. Good decisions will be made while major political power will still rest, and endure, with their participation. In this way people at all levels of interest and engagement – and at all levels - can contribute and have a big impact.

No. WeLeadUSA, however its formal organizational structure might emerge, should never support a specific candidate or one or another party. Our sole purpose must be to create a forum that will rebalance power in our country. This will be done by establishing proximate, authoritative and meaningful interactions between citizens, elected officials, and candidates for office and leveraging that into deeper study and decision making. This will happen across a broad spectrum of issues that inform public policy and the daily life of all Americans. The network will be completely unpartisan yet it will be built to accommodate the work of parties and affiliated voters. Assisting people with opposing points of views to learn more about the opportunities for agreement and action in the public sphere is the very basis of a principled and workable democratic-republic. The rules governing the ballot access and nominating process, voting, and party affiliations are run at the local-state level. This creates variables that can be seen as a confusing hodgepodge, but are really simple and just the by-product of a much decentralized, very democratic republic. They are easily dealt with and the necessary resources to do so will be present in the network; user-members will use that guidance as they see fit. A distaste for political parties is nothing new and though quite understandable, we must comprehend what these organisms are – and aren’t; that perspective is an important message of this work. In fact, these dynamics will likely remake political parties into something very much different; that process will be as interesting to behold as to participate in. A basic filter of a party label can be put to use in identifying principles and concerns. Our parties, as we have known them, are in no way monolithic, necessary or permanent. The change this network might bring to partisan and party politics will be very considerable but with its proper use, it will be highly conscious and considered change for the better.

Personal verification would be completely private and done only for the purposes of establishing a true identity and physical presence with the name and address provided. This is foundational as that will map voting districts and hence prove a reliable visible constituency. People operating in this public environment cannot be anonymous as that obviously couldn't work. Profile names and handles however could be customized to offer an appropriate layer of privacy. The data that will be collected based on the site's activities will never be sold and surveillance or other methods of pursuit for commercial purposes will be forbidden! WeLeadUSA would operate a public resource and be solely funded -and run by - user-members. However, if you show up, they show up and so there would likely be great importance associated with the activities of this network that might be of interest to political scientists, sociologists; various scholars, the media etc. As can be seen from the site metrics page proposed in the network display, this may be something useful, but would only be constructed under the supervision of all stakeholders and executed with total transparency.

Carefully assess the proposal and claims offered here. Communicate freely your questions or concerns. If you agree and understand; act!