One Hour A Week
Americans must demand, that every candidate for Congress, and every Congressional officeholder must devote one hour a week, either in person or by video conference, explaining their philosophy/belief/goals/values on an issue that “WE” choose. This should be looked at as more of a discussion on a particular topic than a Q and A session.
As explained on the RULES page, this one hour is tightly controlled. Current officeholders will obviously refuse —- until their 2022 challengers appear week after week and then incumbents will have no choice.
There may be other methods for “WE THE PEOPLE” to prevent professional politicians and their money from taking control of America. If there are other methods, no one has proposed them. We can accomplish this for the 2022 election if we choose to do so. All of the social and political movements are already organized and functioning. If they can, for this one issue, set aside their differences and join together to exercise the power of “WE”, it will be a paradigm shift in American politics.
There are many qualified people that would be willing to run for office, but the toxic campaigns we conduct in America prevent anyone from running that is not endorsed by one of the two parties, and the money that follows that endorsement. Imagine a true, grassroots candidate who speaks definitively, genuinely and dodges nothing, juxtaposed with the professional politician attacking and dividing with nothing more than shallow talking points. Our forums will create a venue for a new type of candidate, be they Republican, Democrat, Progressive or Independent, to present their philosophy and values.
Rules
Why philosophy/values/feelings/goals? Having a “discussion” with a candidate in combination with these rules, creates a nonpartisan forum, negates the money, and gives no advantage to the incumbents and “purchased” candidates. Asking questions to understand a candidate’s underlying philosophy is entirely different from asking specific policy questions. Questions on underlying philosophy cannot be answered with a talking point or an attack on the opponent. Any attempt to avoid a question of philosophy/belief, on climate change or healthcare for instance, for an hour, delivers the underlying philosophy loud and clear.
Rule 1. Questions must relate to the candidates PHILOSOPHY/BELIEF/VALUES of governance on a specific topic. This is the heart of this movement. Questions on PBV by their nature are nonpartisan. Refusal to explain one’s philosophy would be terminal to an officeholder or candidate’s campaign.
Rule 2. No leading questions–which are questions that suggest an answer. These forums are seeking a deeper understanding of the person, so leading questions would be counterproductive
Rule 3. The weekly topics are announced one week prior to each weekly forum. This eliminates a potential objection to being questioned. Our mission is to inform citizens, not trap candidates.
Rule 4. To participate in our forums as a candidate appearing before a weekly panel to be questioned, the candidate must meet the specific conditions required by the federal government and their own state governments to be a candidate for office
Rule 5. Politician may appear in person or video conference.
Rule 6. Discussions will be available on TV live and archived in the network library for public access. Of course there are many qualified people able to appropriately ask the questions following the rules without training. But the integrity of the weekly one-hour discussion is crucial so that improper or poorly worded questions don’t provide a reason for politicians to refuse to participate.
PANELS – WHO ASKS THE QUESTIONS
This is not a Town Hall meeting format where many topics are addressed superficially. It is in-depth discussion of only one or two topics in an hour. Two or three people asking the questions and a moderator to ensure compliance with the Rules seems practical.
The panelists asking the questions is a highly important decision. This movement is created to encourage grassroots candidates. The discussions/questions for the candidates also need to come from the people at the “grassroots”. The questions should come from people that actually live with the issues to be addressed. “WE” are taking control, so the makeup of the panelists should not be delegated.
The role of the moderator is to ensure the rules are followed. This is CRUCIAL because improper or poorly worded questions that do not follow the Rules would provide politicians a reason to refuse participation. The moderator could reword the question if it was not within the rules or help the panelist to do so.
The point is that “WE” cannot turn over questioning of candidates and incumbents to media journalists or newscasters. If that was effective, this movement would not be needed.
The success or failure of this movement lies in the “purity” of the discussions. Trying to play “gotcha” will result in candidates not participating. Worse, it violates the premise and pledge “WE” made when the invitation to our forums was extended. Restoring good faith and forthrightness are part of the evolution this movement seeks. There must be a good faith on both sides, and it starts with these in- depth discussions.
TV NET WORK
Crowd funding a mere $5.00 per eligible age voter in the US would raise about $1 Billion dollars. The point is that if “WE” choose to do so, the required money is not prohibitive. Since there are no live audiences, the TV studios could be quit small.
An important aspect of a dedicated TV network is the ability to archive all the One Hour sessions. Here will be a record of what was said. So the “fake news” allegations would be diminished also. At some point in time government financing of this network would be possible if there were like-minded people in government.
