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!