How The Competent President could be used to educate US voters

Potential methods to educate US voters

Leveraging the book's content requires translating its RO framework into accessible and compelling formats for different audiences:

1. Develop "Competence Assessment" Guides: Create simplified checklists or guides based on the book's core criteria (e.g., identifying static vs. dynamic logic in statements, assessing time horizon in proposals, looking for signs of valuing work vs. self-interest). Distribute these through civic groups (LWV) and online platforms.
2. Analyze Current Events & Debates: Regularly publish blog posts, articles, or social media threads applying the book's RO framework to analyze statements and actions of current candidates or officials during debates, speeches, or policy rollouts. Highlight examples of different logic levels or time horizons in action.
3. Create Explainer Content: Produce short videos, infographics, or podcast episodes explaining the core RO concepts (C.I.P. levels, Time Horizon, Static/Dynamic Logic, Orders of Information Complexity) using relatable analogies and concrete examples drawn from the presidents discussed in the book.
4. Highlight the Re-election Data: Emphasize the striking correlation presented in the book between demonstrated dynamic capability (Level 7+) and re-election success (100% win rate for those seeking it) versus the poor record of static-logic presidents. Frame this as evidence that competence matters for effective governance voters ultimately recognize.
5. Targeted Workshops & Discussions: Offer workshops or facilitated discussions for engaged citizen groups (e.g., book clubs, civic organizations like LWV chapters, university political unions) teaching them how to apply the book's assessment framework.
6. University Outreach: Promote the book to political science, public administration, and leadership programs as a potential textbook, case study source, or supplementary reading assignment. Encourage academic reviews and conference presentations based on its thesis.
7. Media Engagement: Pitch op-eds and articles to reputable news outlets focusing on the need for presidential competence and offering the book's framework as a method for assessment, using historical examples for illustration. Target appearances on podcasts dealing with politics, history, and leadership.
8. Leverage the RO Community: Engage the existing network of RO consultants and practitioners (like the user's email list) to discuss, critique, and share the book's application of RO principles in the political sphere, potentially creating influential advocates.
9. Contrast with Common Criteria: Explicitly frame the RO criteria against more common but potentially less effective criteria like charisma or pure policy agreement, using examples from the book where voters prioritized the latter to detrimental effect according to Craddock's analysis.
10. Interactive Online Tools: Develop simple online tools or quizzes allowing users to analyze sample candidate statements or scenarios to practice identifying logic levels or assessing time horizons, based on the book's methodology.

Send the book to key voter education groups

Below is a list of prominent US organizations focued on non-partisan voter education ranked loosely by tier by perceived scale and breadth of educational focus in order based on public recognition, stated reach, longevity, and focus on non-partisan voter education (distinct from registration).

Tier 1: Organizations with Very Broad Reach & Strong Educational Focus

1. League of Women Voters (LWV):
   • Focus: Long-standing (since 1920), non-partisan organization with over 700 state and local leagues. Empowers voters through advocacy, education, and litigation. Known for providing comprehensive, unbiased election information.
   • Size/Influence: Extensive grassroots network, reports reaching millions (9.5M in 2024) via its VOTE411.org platform, which provides personalized ballot information, polling place lookups, and candidate info. Highly respected and widely trusted.
2. When We All Vote:
   • Focus: Changes the culture around voting, increases participation across race and age groups, advances civic education. Uses high-profile co-chairs (Michelle Obama, Tom Hanks, etc.) for broad outreach.
   • Size/Influence: Claims massive reach (100 million people contacted in 2020). Leverages cultural figures and partnerships. Strong focus on registration and education. Significant potential influence, particularly via celebrity engagement.

Tier 2: Organizations with Large Scale and/or Significant Influence (Often with Specific Demographic/Method Focus)

3. Common Cause:
   • Focus: Non-partisan group working for accountable government, equal rights, and voter empowerment through policy, litigation, and grassroots action. Has a specific "Common Cause Education Fund" (501c3).
   • Size/Influence: Claims 1.5 million members and supporters nationwide, active in over 25 states. Influential in policy debates and legal challenges related to democracy issues.
4. Rock the Vote:
   • Focus: Targets young voters specifically, using pop culture, music, and technology to engage and register them. Has been active for over 30 years.
   • Size/Influence: Highly influential within the youth demographic. Reports having registered millions over its history. Focus includes breaking down voting barriers which involves education.
5. Vote Smart:
   • Focus: Provides extensive, free, factual, unbiased information on candidates and elected officials (voting records, issue positions, biographical data, funding sources). Purely informational/educational.
   • Size/Influence: Highly influential as a go-to resource for voters, journalists, and researchers seeking non-partisan data on politicians. Its influence lies in the quality and accessibility of its information.
6. Ballotpedia:
   • Focus: A comprehensive online encyclopedia of American politics and elections, providing neutral information on candidates, elections, ballot measures, and political issues.
   • Size/Influence: Extremely widely used digital resource for voters seeking quick, neutral information on what's on their ballot and candidate stances. Its influence comes from its vast database and accessibility.
7. Students Learn Students Vote (SLSV) Coalition:
   • Focus: Claims to be the largest non-partisan network specifically dedicated to increasing college student voter participation through resources, programming, and partnerships. Chairs National Voter Education Week.
   • Size/Influence: Reached over 1400 campuses; highly influential within the higher education and student voter engagement space.

Tier 3: Organizations with Significant Impact in Specific Niches/Functions

8. Fair Elections Center (and its Campus Vote Project):
   • Focus: Uses litigation, advocacy, and education to remove barriers to registration and voting, particularly for marginalized communities and students.
   • Size/Influence: Influential in voting rights legal battles and student voter engagement efforts on campuses nationwide.
9. Voto Latino:
   • Focus: Non-partisan organization focused on educating and empowering Latino voters and increasing participation.
   • Size/Influence: Significant influence within the Latino community.
10. VoteRiders:
    • Focus: Provides education and assistance to help citizens understand and obtain the voter ID they need to cast a ballot.
    • Size/Influence: Crucial influence in states with strict voter ID laws, addressing a specific barrier through education and direct assistance.
11. HeadCount: (Often partners with Rock the Vote)
    • Focus: Registers voters and promotes participation primarily at concerts and music festivals. Combines registration with encouraging informed voting.
    • Size/Influence: Reaches a specific demographic effectively through event-based outreach.
12. iCivics:
    • Focus: Provides high-quality, non-partisan civic education resources (games, lesson plans) primarily for K-12 students and teachers. Founded by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
    • Size/Influence: Major influence in the K-12 civic education space, shaping the understanding of future voters.

Note: Government resources like Vote.gov, the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) are crucial sources of official, trusted information but are not independent advocacy or education organizations in the same vein as the non-profits listed above.

A sample letter to the League of Women voters

[Your Name/Organization Name]

[Your Address]

[Your City, State, Zip]

[Your Email]

[Your Phone Number - Optional] [Date]

League of Women Voters of the United States

Attn: Leadership / Education Fund

[LWVUS Address - e.g., 1225 I Street NW, Suite 750, Washington, DC 20005 - Verify current address]

Subject: Enhancing Voter Education: Introducing "The Competent President" by Kenneth C. Craddock

Dear League of Women Voters Leadership,

For over a century, the League of Women Voters has stood as a cornerstone of American democracy, tirelessly working to empower voters through comprehensive, non-partisan education. It is in the spirit of furthering this vital mission that I write to bring your attention to a significant new book: "The Competent President: Leadership for the Public Good" by Kenneth C. Craddock (2025).

Mr. Craddock's work addresses a fundamental challenge in presidential elections: how can voters move beyond surface-level assessments of personality, ideology, or campaign promises to evaluate a candidate's core capability to handle the immense complexities and long-term demands of the presidency? The book argues compellingly that a failure to elect presidents with the requisite cognitive abilities has contributed to persistent national challenges.

The core contribution of "The Competent President" is its application of a structured, research-based framework – primarily Elliott Jaques's Requisite Organization theory – to assess presidential fitness. It focuses on measurable aspects like:

• Cognitive Capability: Analyzing the complexity of information a candidate can process, distinguishing between "static" (declarative, cumulative) and "dynamic" (serial, parallel/systems) thinking.

• Time Horizon: Assessing the candidate's ability to plan and manage consequences over the multi-decade scope required by the presidency.

• Valuing the Work: Evaluating commitment to the demands of the office for the public good.

Using extensive historical analysis, particularly examining presidential debates and administrations since 1960, Craddock demonstrates how this framework can illuminate crucial differences in candidates' fitness for the role itself, independent of their political party or platform. He presents compelling correlations between assessed capability levels and subsequent presidential performance, including re-election outcomes.

While the book analyzes specific presidencies, its methodology is inherently non-partisan. It offers voters a potential toolset to evaluate any candidate's fundamental capacity for complex problem-solving and strategic leadership – qualities essential for effective governance, regardless of political leaning.

We believe the concepts presented in "The Competent President" could significantly enhance the League's invaluable voter education efforts. The framework offers a way to deepen voter understanding beyond candidate stances on issues, empowering citizens to consider the crucial dimension of requisite capability. These insights could potentially complement the resources already provided through VOTE411.org and local League programming, perhaps through distilled guides, discussion points, or workshops focused on evaluating leadership potential. To support the League's educational mission, we would be pleased to offer a complimentary PDF version of the book for your internal review and potential distribution through your network.

We respectfully encourage the League of Women Voters Education Fund to consider reviewing "The Competent President." We believe its unique, capability-focused approach strongly aligns with the League's enduring commitment to fostering a truly informed and empowered electorate.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and unwavering dedication to American democracy.

Sincerely,

[Your Name/Signature]

[Your Typed Name]

[Your Title/Affiliation, if any]

Voter Priorities Survey Design

This survey aims to understand the relative importance voters place on various criteria when selecting a president, incorporating both Requisite Organization (RO) concepts and commonly considered factors.

Instructions:

Imagine you are choosing between candidates for President of the United States. Different voters prioritize different qualities. We want to understand what is most important to you.

Method 1: Rating Scale

Please rate the importance of each of the following candidate characteristics on a scale of 1 to 5, where: 1 = Not at all Important 2 = Slightly Important 3 = Moderately Important 4 = Very Important 5 = Extremely Important

• Ability to Understand & Solve Complex Problems: The candidate's capacity to grasp and effectively address highly complex national and global issues (reflects C.I.P./Cognitive Capability). [Rating 1-5]
• Commitment to the Demands of the Job: The candidate's dedication and seriousness in valuing the work required of the presidency for the public good (reflects Valuing Work). [Rating 1-5]
• Relevant Governing Skill & Experience: The candidate's demonstrated practical skills and past experience related to governing and executing policy (reflects Skilled Experience). [Rating 1-5]
• Emotional Stability & Sound Temperament: The candidate's emotional balance and absence of personality traits that could disable judgment or performance under pressure (reflects Absence of Disabling Traits / Emotional Intelligence). [Rating 1-5]
• Integrity and Honesty: The candidate's perceived truthfulness and ethical character. [Rating 1-5]
• Demonstrated Interest in the Common Good: Evidence that the candidate prioritizes the well-being of the country as a whole over personal or narrow interests (reflects Civic Virtue). [Rating 1-5]
• Charisma and Ability to Inspire: The candidate's personal appeal, likability, and ability to connect with and motivate voters. [Rating 1-5]
• Agreement with Your Overall Policy Approach: How closely the candidate's general philosophy aligns with yours (e.g., favoring smaller government/lower taxes OR favoring government action/social programs). [Rating 1-5]
• Agreement with Your Stance on Key Issues: How closely the candidate's position aligns with yours on specific issues most important to you (e.g., abortion, climate change, economy, immigration, etc. - could list specific issues or ask respondent to identify). [Rating 1-5]

(Optional Method 2: Points Allocation - Use instead of or in addition to Rating)

You have 100 points to allocate among the following candidate characteristics based on how important each is to you in choosing a president. Distribute the points according to relative importance – assign more points to characteristics you value more. Ensure your total points add up to 100.

• Ability to Understand & Solve Complex Problems: ___ points
• Commitment to the Demands of the Job: ___ points
• Relevant Governing Skill & Experience: ___ points
• Emotional Stability & Sound Temperament: ___ points
• Integrity and Honesty: ___ points
• Demonstrated Interest in the Common Good: ___ points
• Charisma and Ability to Inspire: ___ points
• Agreement with Your Overall Policy Approach: ___ points
• Agreement with Your Stance on Key Issues: ___ points Total: 100 points

(Optional Demographics - Add if useful for analysis)

• Age range
• Political affiliation/leaning
• Level of political engagement
• Geographic location (State/Region)
• Education level