← We The People Platform Download .docx

INFORMED CITIZENSHIP

Why a Working Public Discourse

Is the Precondition for Everything Else

A Strategic Companion to the We The People Platform

Journalism. Civic Education. Voter Access. Public Meeting Transparency.

A Vision-Level Document on Democratic Institutional Concerns

Jason Robertson

v2.0 · Repositioned May 5, 2026 from the original v1.0 document

Ohio · 2026

A Note on This Document’s Status

This document is a strategic companion to the We The People platform, in the same category as Built For What’s Coming. It is not a formal pillar of the platform. It is a vision-level treatment of a set of concerns the author considers important and connected, presented at concept depth without the funding mechanisms, operational designs, or mathematical models that the platform’s formal pillars carry.

Origin and repositioning. This document was originally drafted as a pillar concept document under the title “Civic Infrastructure — The Foundations of an Informed Citizenry” in v1.0 of the platform package. In v2.3, the platform formally redefined the Civic Infrastructure pillar to mean shared physical and digital systems (Universal Broadband, Transportation, Water and Sewer, Public Spaces, Civic Technology, Energy Grid Modernization). The redefined pillar was substantiated in v2.4 and v2.8. This document’s content — about journalism, civic education, voter access, and public meeting transparency — is unchanged in substance from the original, but is repositioned in v2.8.1 as Informed Citizenship to resolve the naming conflict and to be honest about what the document is and is not.

The concerns this document addresses are real. Local journalism has collapsed across most of the United States. Civic education has been hollowed out across the K-12 system. Voter access varies enormously across states in ways that have little to do with election integrity. Public meetings produce minimal accountability because they’re structured to produce compliance with open-meeting laws rather than transparency about decisions. Each of these is worth taking seriously. None of them currently fit the platform’s primary architectural pattern — pooled contribution, empirical anchoring, transparent governance applied to identifiable funding mechanisms — well enough to be substantiated as a pillar at the depth the platform’s formal pillars have achieved.

Treating this material as a strategic vision piece rather than as a formal pillar is the honest accounting. The values are clear. The architectural ideas are sketched. The substantiation work that would convert sketches into pillars has not been done, and may or may not be done in subsequent platform versions. Readers encountering this document should engage with it on those terms.

Why a Working Public Discourse Matters

The platform’s broader argument depends on a working public discourse capable of evaluating policy proposals on their merits. The other documents in the package describe what the platform proposes and why. None of them can succeed if citizens cannot observe what their institutions are doing, cannot understand what they observe, cannot evaluate competing claims about it, and cannot translate their understanding into political action.

These conditions are not currently well-met in the United States. Local journalism has collapsed in most communities, eliminating the intermediary that historically translated government activity into citizen understanding. Civic education has been hollowed out across the K-12 system, leaving citizens without the foundational knowledge that allows them to evaluate what they encounter. Voter access varies enormously across states in ways that have little to do with election integrity and much to do with partisan advantage. Public meetings produce minimal accountability because they’re structured to produce technical compliance rather than substantive transparency.

This document addresses these gaps as connected problems with a shared underlying solution: institutional infrastructure that supports informed citizenship without dictating what citizens should think. The mechanisms differ by component, but the architectural principle is consistent. Public investment in the infrastructure of civic participation, structured to be politically insulated, transparent in operation, and accountable to citizens directly rather than to whichever political coalition happens to hold power.

“The platform’s other commitments cannot be evaluated fairly in a public sphere too degraded to evaluate them. Informed citizenship is the precondition, not a separate concern.”

Component One: Journalism Infrastructure

Local journalism has collapsed across most of the United States. Approximately 2,500 American newspapers have closed since 2005. More than half of American counties have either no local newspaper or a single weekly that produces minimal original reporting. The geographic distribution of news deserts maps closely onto the geographic distribution of declining civic engagement, low voter turnout, and reduced accountability for local government and business.

What’s at Stake

Communities without local journalism don’t know what their school boards are doing, what zoning decisions affect their neighborhoods, what their county commissioners are deciding, what their police departments are doing, what their hospitals are charging, or what their employers are negotiating. These information gaps are not theoretical. Research consistently shows that communities losing local journalism see measurable increases in municipal borrowing costs, reductions in voter participation, and reduced detection of corruption and self-dealing in local government and institutions.

The collapse is structural rather than cyclical. The advertising revenue that funded American newspapers for over a century shifted to digital platforms that capture the value without providing the journalism. Subscription revenue alone is insufficient to sustain local journalism in most markets. Philanthropic models work in some markets (Pro Publica, Texas Tribune, Spotlight PA) but require sustained donor commitment that is fragile and unevenly distributed across communities.

Architectural Principle

Any institution with the power to define what counts as good journalism has the power to be captured by whoever controls those definitions. The historical record on state-funded journalism in democratic countries is mixed at best. The approach sketched here is therefore indirect: build institutional infrastructure that supports the conditions for good journalism without putting government in the position of evaluating journalism’s content.

Several mechanisms operate together. Tax incentives for nonprofit journalism organizations strengthen the philanthropic model that has been most successful in producing high-quality journalism. Tax-deductible journalism subscriptions encourage citizen support of local journalism through the same mechanism that has long supported other charitable activities. Strengthened public broadcasting infrastructure, modeled on the BBC’s license fee approach to insulate funding from annual political appropriations, provides national capacity for journalism that markets and philanthropy don’t adequately fund. Antitrust action against digital platforms that capture advertising revenue without producing journalism rebalances the economic conditions that produced the collapse.

None of these mechanisms put the federal government in the position of evaluating journalism content. Each addresses one of the structural conditions that has produced the current collapse. Together, they constitute infrastructure that supports journalism without producing it directly.

Component Two: Civic Education

Civic education has been progressively hollowed out across American K-12 education over the past several decades. The combined effect of standardized testing pressure on subjects not measured by tests, partisan controversy over curriculum content, and reduced state and federal funding has reduced civic education to minimal coverage in most American schools. The consequences are visible in declining understanding of basic civic concepts, declining trust in democratic institutions across all political coalitions, and declining ability to engage with policy proposals on their merits rather than through partisan reflexes.

What Citizens Need to Know

The civic education curriculum required for informed citizenship is not controversial in its core elements. Citizens need to understand how their government is structured at federal, state, and local levels. They need to understand how laws are made and how policies are implemented. They need to understand the basics of how elections work and how their votes contribute to outcomes. They need to understand the rights they have as citizens and the responsibilities that accompany those rights. They need to understand how to evaluate sources of information, how to distinguish argument from assertion, and how to engage productively with people whose political views differ from their own.

None of this is partisan content. All of it is currently inadequately taught in most American schools. A civic education component would provide federal funding for state-administered civic education programs that meet defined content standards, with the standards developed through bipartisan processes designed to focus on shared civic foundations rather than contested partisan content.

Adult Civic Education

The same civic education infrastructure should support adult learners who completed their formal education before contemporary civic education resources existed, or whose education didn’t adequately cover civic content. Online and community-based civic education programs, accessible to any adult at no cost, would address gaps in civic understanding that affect millions of Americans whose K-12 education didn’t prepare them for the civic responsibilities of adulthood.

This connects directly to the platform’s Sovereign Education Fund architecture. Civic education courses through community colleges, public libraries, and online platforms could be eligible for Education Fund support, encouraging adult learners to engage with civic content as part of their broader continuing education. This is the most concrete cross-connection between this vision document and the platform’s formal pillars.

Honest Limitations

Civic education has a real history of being captured by political interests on both sides. Conservatives have at various times pushed for civic education that emphasizes American exceptionalism and minimizes historical injustice. Progressives have at various times pushed for civic education that emphasizes structural inequality and minimizes the legitimate accomplishments of American institutions. Neither extreme produces good civic education. Any architecture has to insulate civic education from both political extremes through the same governance principles that protect other components of the platform: independent oversight, statutory firewalls against political direction, transparent content development processes.

Component Three: Voter Access Infrastructure

Voter access varies enormously across American states in ways that have little to do with election integrity and much to do with partisan advantage. Some states make voting straightforward through automatic registration, mail-in voting, generous early voting periods, and polling places convenient to where people live. Other states have layered registration requirements, photo ID rules, limited polling locations, restricted hours, and other measures that disproportionately affect specific demographic groups. The result is a patchwork in which the right to vote varies enormously based on accident of geography rather than on any principle of citizenship.

Architectural Principle

The position sketched here is that the right to vote should not vary substantially based on which state a citizen happens to live in. This is not the same as endorsing any specific federal voting standards. The mechanisms that produce reliable voter access vary across states, and reasonable people can disagree about specific implementations. What is endorsed is a federal floor of voter access that all states must meet, with states free to exceed the floor in any direction they choose.

The federal floor would include automatic voter registration through interactions with state agencies (DMV, public assistance, public colleges), making registration the default rather than the exception. It would include adequate polling location density relative to population, calculated through observable formulas rather than negotiated state by state. It would include early voting periods of reasonable duration. It would include mail-in voting access for any citizen who requests it. It would include same-day registration in states that have demonstrated administrative capacity for it. None of these provisions are controversial in their core elements; they are matters of administrative implementation that have become controversial only because state-level partisan competition has captured the implementation.

Election Infrastructure Funding

Local election administration is currently funded primarily through state and county budgets. The result is enormous variation in election infrastructure quality. Wealthy counties have well-maintained voting equipment, adequate poll worker compensation, and modern voter registration systems. Poor counties have outdated equipment, insufficient poll workers, and registration systems that fail under load. This produces both legitimate failures (long lines, machine breakdowns, registration errors) and reduced confidence in election integrity (where failures occur, voters reasonably question whether their votes were counted).

Federal funding for local election infrastructure, distributed through formulas based on population and election administration costs, would equalize election infrastructure quality across the country. This is not federalization of elections (which constitutional structure prevents) but federal infrastructure support for state and local election administration. Both major political coalitions have at various times supported this in principle. This document endorses making it actual rather than aspirational.

Audit Infrastructure

Election integrity depends on the ability to audit election results. Current audit practices vary enormously across states. Some states conduct rigorous post-election audits that verify outcomes through statistical sampling. Others conduct minimal audits that don’t meaningfully verify anything. Standardized audit infrastructure, with statistical methodologies developed by election security experts and applied consistently across states, would produce election results that are defensible regardless of which coalition wins specific contests. This is foundational infrastructure for the legitimacy of democratic outcomes.

Component Four: Public Meeting Transparency

Public meetings at all levels of American government produce minimal accountability because they’re structured to produce compliance with open-meeting laws rather than transparency about decisions. Documents are released in volumes too large for citizens to evaluate. Meetings are held at times that exclude working citizens from attending. Recordings are difficult to access. The information that would allow citizens to understand what their governments are deciding exists in principle but is functionally unavailable.

Architectural Principle

Public meetings should be genuinely public. This requires more than technical compliance with open-meeting requirements. It requires structural infrastructure that makes meetings accessible to working citizens, that makes meeting materials searchable and comprehensible, and that produces records of decisions that can be evaluated against subsequent outcomes.

The approach sketched here extends existing open-meeting requirements with additional infrastructure. Meeting recordings published within twenty-four hours through standardized federal infrastructure that aggregates state, county, and municipal recordings into searchable national databases. Meeting materials published in accessible formats that allow citizens to understand what was decided without specialized expertise. Decision tracking that connects current decisions to subsequent outcomes, allowing citizens to evaluate whether decisions produced their intended effects.

Accessible Formats

Government meetings often produce decisions communicated in language that citizens cannot reasonably parse. Zoning decisions, budget allocations, regulatory changes, and policy adjustments are described in technical language that communicates information to specialists but not to citizens. Plain-language summaries of meeting decisions, published alongside the technical records, would make government accessible to the citizens it serves.

The Federal Register has gestured toward this for federal regulations through Section-by-Section summaries and other accessibility tools. The principle could be extended to meetings at all levels, with federal funding supporting the local capacity to produce accessible summaries of meeting decisions.

Why This Matters Specifically Now

The collapse of local journalism, addressed in Component One, has eliminated one of the primary mechanisms by which citizens have historically understood what their governments are doing. Reporters used to attend meetings, evaluate decisions, and translate technical proceedings into accessible coverage. With reporters absent from most local meetings, citizens have lost the intermediary that made government comprehensible. Public meeting transparency infrastructure partially substitutes for the absent journalism by making the meetings themselves more directly accessible to citizens.

This is not a substitute for journalism, which performs interpretive functions that direct meeting access cannot replace. It is a partial mitigation of the consequences of journalism’s collapse, while the broader journalism infrastructure work proceeds.

How the Four Components Relate

The four components are connected because the underlying problem is connected. Citizens cannot make informed decisions about institutions they cannot observe, cannot understand, or cannot effectively participate in. Each component addresses one face of the same underlying capacity gap.

Journalism produces the interpretive layer between government activity and citizen understanding. Without it, citizens see only fragments of what their institutions are doing.

Civic education produces the foundational knowledge that allows citizens to evaluate what they observe. Without it, citizens lack the framework to understand what they’re seeing even when they see it.

Voter access produces the mechanism by which citizens translate understanding into action. Without it, the understanding citizens develop has nowhere to go.

Public meeting transparency produces the raw material that journalism interprets, that civic education prepares citizens to understand, and that voter participation acts upon. Without it, the other components have nothing concrete to work with.

Each component supports the others. Journalism that has access to transparent meeting records produces better journalism. Citizens with strong civic education evaluate journalism more carefully. Voters with reliable access participate more meaningfully in elections that respond to the journalism they’ve consumed. Public meetings that are genuinely accessible attract more substantive citizen engagement, which increases the demand for journalism that interprets them, which strengthens the case for civic education that prepares citizens to engage with the journalism.

Relationship to the Platform’s Formal Pillars

This vision document sits alongside the platform’s formal pillars rather than as one of them. Several relationships are worth naming explicitly.

The Civic Infrastructure pillar in the platform’s formal architecture covers a different set of concerns: shared physical and digital systems (broadband, transportation, water and sewer, public spaces, Civic Technology, energy grid). The two are distinguishable: Civic Infrastructure is what makes modern American life possible at all; informed citizenship is what makes the institutions of self-government legible and accessible to the citizens those institutions serve. They share a folder location and a vocabulary of shared concern, but they address different problems and would require different funding mechanisms, different governance structures, and different substantiation work.

The Sovereign Education Fund is the most concrete connection. Civic education content delivered through community colleges, public libraries, and online platforms could be eligible for Education Fund support, providing a funding pathway for the adult civic education concerns described in Component Two without requiring a separate funding architecture for that component alone. This connection is real, and the platform’s education pillar already accommodates it.

The platform’s broader argument about transparent governance, statutory firewalls against political direction, and the protection of long-horizon institutions from short-term political pressure applies in this domain as it does in others. If the concerns articulated in this document are eventually substantiated as a formal pillar, the architectural patterns the platform has already developed for the Sovereign Fund and the Civic Infrastructure pillar would be the natural starting points.

Honest Limitations

This document is a vision-level treatment, not a substantiated pillar. Several limits warrant explicit acknowledgment.

The funding mechanism for the four components has not been worked out. Each component would require its own funding analysis, and the components are different enough that they probably require different funding approaches. Tax incentive mechanisms work for journalism and adult civic education. Direct federal funding works for K-12 civic education and election infrastructure. Federal grants work for public meeting transparency infrastructure. Combining these mechanisms into a coherent funding architecture would require work that has not yet been done.

The institutional design for each component requires development. Which federal agencies would administer which programs. How insulation from political pressure would be structured. What the relationship would be between federal infrastructure and state and local implementation. How program quality would be evaluated and improved over time. These questions have answers, but the answers vary by component and require careful working through.

The political coalition for these concerns is narrower than for the platform’s formal pillars. Many of the platform’s primary pillars enjoy support across political lines because they address universally felt economic insecurity. The concerns articulated here are more contested. Conservatives may oppose federal funding for journalism on principle even when the funding is structured to be content-neutral. Progressives may oppose voter access standards that don’t go as far as they would prefer. Religious conservatives may oppose civic education content that includes coverage of historical injustice. Building political support for any pillar built around these concerns would require more careful coalition work than the platform’s primary pillars have required.

The constitutional questions are substantial. Federal voting standards face Constitutional questions about state authority over elections. Federal journalism support faces First Amendment questions. Federal civic education content faces both federalism and First Amendment questions. None of these constitutional questions are insurmountable, but each requires legal architecture more sophisticated than this concept document provides.

Whether the concerns articulated here are eventually developed into a formal pillar is an open question for subsequent platform versions. The substantive analysis above is preserved in this document so that the work is not lost. Whether to extend the work depends on platform priorities and on whether the political and institutional design challenges named here can be productively addressed.

Closing

The platform’s broader argument rests on a working public discourse capable of evaluating policy proposals on their merits. The concerns articulated in this document exist because the working public discourse the platform needs is not currently available. Building the infrastructure that supports informed citizenship is therefore not separate from the platform’s other commitments. It is the precondition for the platform’s other commitments to be evaluated on their merits.

Each component described in this document has been articulated by other reform proposals at various times. Local journalism support has been advocated by media reform advocates for decades. Civic education improvement has been called for repeatedly across political coalitions. Voter access expansion is a perennial topic of state and federal legislation. Public meeting transparency has been advocated by good-government organizations for generations. What this document contributes is not novelty in any of these areas. It is the integration of the four components into a coherent set of concerns about informed citizenship, alongside the platform’s formal pillars.

The work that remains is substantial. The values commitment is clear. The architectural intent is sketched. The implementation specifics, the funding mechanisms, the institutional design, and the political coalition all require development. This document is offered as a vision-level entry point for that development, not as its conclusion.

“Citizens cannot make informed decisions about institutions they cannot observe, cannot understand, or cannot effectively participate in. Whether informed citizenship eventually becomes a formal pillar of the platform or remains a strategic vision piece, the concerns it raises will not stop being concerns until they are addressed.”

Jason Robertson

Ohio, 2026