However, you should always try to get your own opinion and try to search out for facts by yourself.
The advantage of this is that instead of having to look at each politician's website, you can look to see a) when are the upcoming elections that affect you, b) who is running in them, and c) what are their positions, in a common format and easily compared.
So, for example, I enter my zip code and I see that the local port authority election is coming up (march 12), and Bob(R), Joe(D), and Rosa(I) are running. I click on the position page and see tabs for Port Fees, Port Expansion, and Sewage Handling. I click on the Port Expansion tab, and compare each of the candidates statements, written in their own words (or that of their staff) and I can compare them directly. I see that Rosa has noticed that Bob is overselling the advantages of expansion in his statement and she has provided a rebuttal directly in her statement. Joe's statement doesn't even address the issue but makes fun of Bob's looks. I make a note of my preference, and save it to my personal account. Then I print out a reminder sheet with the date of the election and who my preferences are, with little notes: March 12, Port Election, Rosa (expansion costs too much).
From a business standpoint (although this really ought to be a .org), I think this could be "build it and they will come", because politicians spend a lot of money trying to get their message out. If you offer a free place where their message will get exposure, they will use it. Once the use of the site has grown enough, it will have its own gravity pulling in new users. It would probably be good to focus on a few local races to get them to use it to start the growth.
Voters decided the ends when they voted for Trump.
And no, I don't think this event was bad.
What's needed are sites filled with accurate information and that allows people to explore issues (which will be actual issues, actual things that need to be thought out and address, and actual things that need to get done or that should possibly get done) to see where they personally stand. Also, being burnt into the public eye for many years (launch in 2017 in preparation for the 2020 elections) will give it time to grow to maturity as the next generation rolls in.
The sites would have to be well-done to be able to uncover good insights in a way that's not easily gamed. I think many want to be informed on the issues and who to elect, etc, as they aren't totally aware of what's going on, and will probably be open to accurate/relevant information, or will believe whatever they are told by Fox (which will net the same outcome if it's accurate/worthwhile, rather than the hodgepodge of crap that's usually spammed). Also, while many want to vote well with good information, they don't really want to spend much time sorting through everything or even thinking about these things. That is, they just want everything to work (which some turn their nose up at, but it doesn't matter unless it affects the accuracy of their vote).
Also, the electoral college, house seats, congress, etc, all need to be turned upside down, thrown out, thoroughly reassessed, etc, to see if there's anything there. There's a lot more data, intelligence, capable people, and accumulation of knowledge and experience now than there was in the 1700s when a handful of people sat in a room and quickly scraped something together one night. How can something be expected to blindly stand the test of time in general, much less when it was just hastily pieced together? Things need to be generally done correctly in order for them to be better over time, but as that hasn't ever usually been the case, things need to be revisited from time-to-time to ensure they are what's needed.
The problem with the revisits (and everything else) are those that are always trying to break the system or game it to get more of what they want. There are always those people/groups, but it's important to separate that concern from the issue of correctness/precision/accuracy. That is, malintent shouldn't be used to get in the way of doing something properly (or from someone trying to do so), it should mainly serve as perspective such that the solution can be properly Engineered to be buffered/resistant to attacks, while still doing what's necessary. If the attacks are such that it sets the system to neutral or mediocre, then you can't just settle on that. You have to figure something out to ensure what's actually needed makes it through.
In any event, time has shown that nothing that's actually needed is out of reach or impossible, it's that the "powers that be" didn't want to do it or didn't know how.