The problem we are working on

Americans consistently tell pollsters they trust local government more than any other level of government — and then miss the meetings where it acts. That is not apathy. Local decisions are announced in PDF agendas written for lawyers, at 10 a.m. on a Tuesday, in a building with parking that costs money, under item numbers that reveal nothing. By the time a decision reaches the news, the vote has happened.

Meanwhile, the places where people do argue about local issues — neighborhood social media groups, comment sections, group chats — are built to reward the loudest claim, not the best-evidenced one. A neighbor’s guess and a city engineer’s traffic study look identical on a phone screen.

JFK Debate exists to close both gaps.

What we do

We structure the argument. Every debate on this platform has a proposition a specific body can decide, a neutral context section, arguments for and against, required sources, a community vote and — when the body acts — the recorded outcome. That structure is deliberately inconvenient. It forces the strongest version of each side to the top and makes unsupported claims visible as unsupported.

We publish the calendar. Our town hall directory tracks the regular meeting schedules and official agenda portals for the largest US cities, because the week an agenda is posted is the week a decision can still be changed.

We map the machinery. The local government directory covers councils, county boards, school districts and planning commissions in the 100 largest cities, with the official links, the meeting nights and the contacts — so “who decides this?” takes thirty seconds, not an afternoon.

We teach the process. Our guides walk through public comment, petitions, records requests and finding your representatives, with templates you can copy.

We record what happened. A debate is closed with an outcome: what the body decided, when, and by what vote. Over time that turns into something no city currently publishes — a public record of arguments made and decisions taken, side by side.

Our standards

  1. Evidence is a required field. No argument publishes on this platform without a source. Arguments whose factual premise is backed by an authoritative primary document are marked Verified by a moderator.
  2. Non-partisan, permanently. We do not endorse candidates, parties or ballot measures. We do not accept political advertising. Moderators apply identical standards to arguments from every direction, and our own editorial writing presents the strongest case on each side.
  3. Corrections are public. When we get something wrong, the correction appears on the page that was wrong, dated. See our editorial policy.
  4. Sources, not summaries. Wherever possible we link the ordinance, the staff report, the dataset — not a story about it.
  5. We are not a government site. Nothing here is legal advice, an official notice, or a substitute for your city’s own published information. Always confirm details with the jurisdiction before you act.

How the platform is organized

We are a small distributed team working in four functions:

  • Editorial — writes explainers, seeds starter debates, checks sources and publishes corrections.
  • Moderation — reviews first-time submissions before publication, handles reports and fact-check requests, and applies the community guidelines.
  • Data — compiles and re-verifies the local government directory and meeting schedules against official sources.
  • Engineering — builds the platform, keeps it fast and accessible, and keeps user data minimal.

Named staff, advisers and their affiliations will be listed on this page as the team is formalized. We publish affiliations because a civic platform that hides who runs it has no standing to demand transparency from anyone else.

Funding

We are building a funding mix designed so that no single source can shape coverage:

  • Organization subscriptions — civic groups, neighborhood associations, newsrooms and local government offices pay for analytics, verified profiles and priority moderation. See for organizations.
  • Sponsored debates — non-partisan civic organizations can sponsor a debate on a topic. Sponsorship is labeled on the debate, never influences the arguments or their moderation, and is refused from candidates, parties and ballot-measure committees.
  • Philanthropy — we intend to seek support from funders working on local news and civic participation. Any grant received will be listed here with its amount and term.
  • Limited advertising — non-political display advertising only, subject to our advertising policy.

Reading, debating, voting and signing are free for residents and will stay free.

Partners

We are opening a partner program for local newsrooms, libraries, neighborhood associations, universities and civic organizations that want to co-host debates in their community or embed our directory data. We list only organizations that have actually signed an agreement — no logo walls of groups we merely admire. If that is you, write to [email protected].

Contact

Editorial and corrections, moderation appeals, data errors, press and partnerships: see the contact page. We answer editorial and moderation questions within two business days.