frequently asked questions

What is different about the WeLeadUSA Citizens Access Network and the solution it offers?

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. arrow-point 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. arrow-point 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!


How is this different from, or why will it be more effective than reform efforts like campaign-finance, constitutional amendments, voting modifications or the greater participation of third parties?

A full review of the failures of the hardened, myopic responses we constantly pursue is an essential message of this effort. The "Fighting the Last War" and "Choose Wisely" content are just two pieces that provide important and simple analysis.
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!