These factors serve to limit the beneficial effects of "joining" to that site-source, or channels financial bottom line and "public reach". This has the paradoxical effect of transferring the individual's power to the site-source- as their registration devolves the benefits of social proof upon it.

Of course no entity in this category is specifically purposed - with its infrastructure or by intent - to enable powerful, active citizenship by its public. Consequently, it is highly unlikely that users in these media environs would gain any reciprocal power from this act; and relationship.

Therefore, given their purpose and architecture, for users deeper interactions - offline actions, communicating/meeting with others - would likely be unconnected to and from the site, and solely of their own making. Given the vast distribution of people, territory and subject matter the site-source may facilitate (weak ties), such occurrences are likely to be quite rare.

However, though there may be no beneficial effects - or even mutual advantage - to the individual in terms of their relationship to power in society at large, there are important byproducts.

This, because as more people use a Facebook, subscribe to a N.Y. Times - or "uniquely visit" a media site - there is that much more potential social influence that site-sources ecosystem can wield with its technological infrastructure and/or published content. Likewise, its commercial power is accordingly hardened by increased advertising, subscriber, or "store" based revenues.

This all compounds the basic, well known, and too easily accepted - yet murky - immense hand over of power in terms of user's personal information; which of course the site-source can access and monetize with little oversight or hindrance.

In these ways the individual both makes more powerful, and cedes their power, to others who will decide what is important and what is real; what political candidate to endorse or reject, what "expert" or policy to promote or obscure, what information to reveal or conceal.

The act of a sign-up or registration - limited to only that - creates no change in public power dynamics and in fact may be harmful to the general welfare of the public.

With no further action attached, "joining" simply becomes a statistical measurement; at best. In many cases where more may be asked of the registrant, it's often limited to the imperatives of fund-raising; an overt transfer of power and responsibility.

If physical action were even possible (on-line petitions for instance would typically involve no further "call to action") truly desired, and explained - still, few people could or would be responsive to that call.

Whether or not that outcome is attributable to some defect in registrant, cause, or organization, the sheer number of these efforts serves to provoke a fragmented, overlapping and competitive environment; which is a problem.

Because these dynamics of dilution and competition tend to make clarity elusive and accomplishments doubtful, they fuel a public inertia and fatigue. This in turn undermines the power potential of all of these causes as the public's precious resources of time, attention and money are exhausted.

Accordingly, no genuine effects on the power dynamics of the individual or society at large can be associated with the act of registration or "membership" with interests operating in this category.

Therefore the act is rendered insignificant, perhaps frivolous and increasingly unhelpful.

For the domains being weighed here, any appeal to join, to register or sign up, has the intention of creating some class of audience.

Whether the aim is to see them receive newsletters, fund-raising solicitations, socialize and consume media, or attend a function; the offer to register - and the effort to make that offer - has the inherent objective of assembling an audience.

For their part, registrants have a pretty good idea as to what is intended by the offer and what they are agreeing to.

There is no difference here as the WeLeadUSA proposal is based explicitly on assembling an audience:

Fundamental to understanding the powerful effects the simple act of verified registration into the Citizens Access Network will cause is an understanding of the power the American citizen possesses as a nominator.

If we did, the political parties and its associated apparatus would suffer a proportional loss of whatever power they wield as we create and manage electoral competition; and use it!

It is important to note that by political party, here we are not only talking about an elephant or a donkey; we are talking holistically about the money-media-money-election complex, which makes for the totality of our electoral system...of which the major political parties are a component.

That complex derives its power first from their qualitative participation in the ballot access and nominating process and will lose power as we gain through our qualitative participation.

With that established it is a simple matter - with the effortless act of verified registration into the Citizens Access Network - to see major change brought to the power dynamics of civic society.