Divisive Political Forces

One of the most fascinating, most important, and most complicated challenges in DirectDemocracyS, in our political organization, has been to have our own political identity, and our own ideal that represents us everywhere.

All our fundamental characteristics and all our rules and methodologies, however, have helped us, because it was enough to implement them, in the search for our own political identity, and a political ideal, basing it on our specificities.

Unity in diversity was fundamental, because it allowed us to take from all our official members, drawn from every old political force, all the very few positive aspects, eliminating all the negative ones, applying logic, common sense, truth, reality, and our own rules and methodologies. Thus, together, we created the DirectDemocracyS ideal, the best possible.

This ideal of ours allows us to always be on the right side, but it automatically makes us loved and hated by anyone who is too ideologically driven, manipulated, and negatively influenced by the old political forces.

In the early stages, unfortunately, or fortunately, especially those disillusioned with the old political forces, and almost all those who have decided to no longer trust the usual political parties, political groups, and movements, had the patience to study us, the desire to delve deeper, and the courage to trust and join us. This is one of the reasons we offer benefits and advantages, as well as a wealth of potential, to the first to join us. Strategic advantages, superior user types, roles of greater importance and responsibility, and above all the logical possibility of earning a greater number of points than new users. In the future, all these points will be rewarded with cash prizes, various goods and services, as well as access to restricted and secret areas, more important groups, and greater potential.

This DirectDemocracyS ideal also allows us to have a unique and inimitable style, not only to communicate directly, clearly, and without possible interpretations, but it also makes us distinguishable from all other political forces, because there can be no inconsistencies or inconsistencies in what we say and what we do.

We also have the ability to evolve to stay modern, without ever forgetting why we were born, where we want to go, and how we will get there.

Anyone who joins us receives ongoing support and the most competent information to make informed, informed personal choices, taking into account all the possibilities and consequences foreseen by our experts. This method allows us to intelligently address one of the greatest flaws of direct democracy and bottom-up control: the risk of making the wrong decisions. Please note: all our specialist groups are composed of our official members (therefore collective owners of our entire system), with declared, documented, demonstrated, tested, and continuously verified skills to prevent any form of corruption and avoid any potential problems. Each of our official members specializes in a specific field and can inform, contact, communicate, and make suggestions based on their expertise, without forcing anyone to follow their suggestions.

In this case, some might wonder: what if users vote based on their own opinions without listening to the advice of expert groups? Our answer is obvious: everyone is free to think what they want, and to conduct their own research (if they don't trust our experts) to gain more detailed insights into certain topics; therefore, voting is free and democratic. But it was also necessary to make decisions and votes open, meaning everyone can verify that their vote has actually been counted, exactly as it was cast. This has allowed us to not yet have a single dispute about the results of any of our votes, and therefore about any of our decisions. To best prevent any possible errors or incorrect decisions, we have introduced the requirement for each voter to justify their decision (clearly explaining why they voted that way) (we repeat, openly). Obviously, if your reasons are unconvincing, or if they raise suspicions that will be carefully verified (e.g., corruption or an unclear vote), no one will change their decision, and your vote will stand, exactly as it was cast. We have also introduced, for the first time in a system like this, collective responsibility, and individual responsibility (for each individual voter), for all the consequences of the decision, or election, cast with their vote. In this way, knowing they will be held accountable for their vote, we are confident that everyone will do so intelligently, informedly, and with the well-being of the entire world population as their sole interest, without any bias. This additional aspect of our voting makes our decisions politically, ethically, and morally unassailable, preventing us from thinking only of our own interests.

At this point, there will be many questions about the reason for open voting: because, if a person has an opinion, they have no reason to be ashamed of it. No one has ever been expelled, and no one ever will be, for what they think, for what they believe, for what they vote, for what they decide, if they do it the right way, at the right time, in the right place, respecting all our rules, methodologies, instructions, and security measures. Everyone in our system is free to dissent from our collective decisions, but to do so, they must use the formula "I," referring to themselves and their opinions, and "us," referring to the decisions of our shared leadership, which includes all our registered users, with verified and guaranteed identities, who are compliant with their attendance requirements, who are required to participate in activities with us, and who have paid their annual dues. While anyone can disagree and therefore have a different opinion, the decisions we make together, and our rules, must be respected and implemented, based on how they were decided, based on very democratic voting rules, with quorums that change based on the importance of the decision to be made, in a very democratic and intelligent way.

Why justify every open vote? To help others understand your reasoning and what determined your vote, not to influence others, but to explain how you decided to cast your vote. It helps engage everyone in discussions, which are often very long, detailed, and certainly beneficial to everyone.

Accountability is a logical consequence of all our rules, and it's perhaps the thing most lacking in almost all other systems, and in almost all other political forces. We understand that admitting one's mistakes is difficult, let alone assuming full responsibility, forever, for all the consequences of one's decisions, but for us, it's the only correct, reliable, and distinctive behavior compared to all others. Doing so collectively, in groups, and even individually, forces us to make better choices in the common interest, which is mandatory, according to DirectDemocracyS.

For each reason behind each of our decisions, we will write one or more informative articles, to make you understand that it is the only right choice, to be credible, efficient, useful to everyone, and to ensure that no one will try to boycott us, slow us down, stop us, or derail our system. For many people, these are inconceivable, because they are too accustomed to having to hide their ideas, for fear of being excluded (with us, this risk does not exist), but also to not having to explain themselves to anyone (this would be counterproductive in our system), and above all, to not taking responsibility for their own mistakes.

Look at anyone who frequently expresses themselves publicly on traditional social networks, but also in public places. If something right and sensible is proposed, said, decided, or implemented by a political "opponent," who is often seen as a true enemy, for those who are overly ideologically driven and manipulated, it will always be wrong, and therefore worthy of criticism, sabotage, judgment, and condemnation. If, however, something is clearly wrong, reprehensible, often even violent and criminal, but was done by one's own favorites, by those who manipulate them, lie to them, and truly brainwash them, it is still approved and supported. This method of judging, acquitting the guilty if they are among one's heroes, and condemning the innocent if they belong to different political parties, is not only counterproductive, unsuccessful, and unjust, but a sort of Stockholm Syndrome, in which many, too many, voters are used to justify and push through many bad decisions. DirectDemocracyS will never make any electoral agreements, nor will it be part of coalitions. This isn't because we don't enjoy dialogue; on the contrary, we will collaborate with anyone, but each one will go their own way. There are multiple reasons for this: the first is that we already have people of every possible political ideology within us; therefore, we pursue high-quality politics, based on mutual respect, preventing internal or external conflicts. We are not anti-political; we don't engage in less politics, but we engage in a different and better kind of politics, therefore more politics, of high quality, without excluding anyone's ideas. This is why we don't need partners to advance our ideas. The second reason will surely piss off some "experts," who teach us that politics is the art of compromise. This is the greatest nonsense, because compromise is often used to justify one's own failures. Look at many coalitions, many governments, and many parliaments, where entire political forces and their "clever" representatives, to avoid being judged negatively, tell the entire world: I would have done it, but the coalition, our partners, didn't let us. In practice, they often use "compromise" in despicable ways, even to manipulate and influence voters' potential decisions. DirectDemocracyS accepts no impositions, and makes no compromises with anyone. If we win the elections (and that's very likely), we will govern and make fair and equitable laws, together with all our voters, in everyone's interest, and we will be judged for all the positive results we achieve. If we lose the elections, we will vote in favor of all the laws our voters deem fair and equitable, and we will vote against, offering our solutions, all the laws and decisions our voters do not consider fair and equitable. We know this is the only way to be truly innovative and alternative.

DirectDemocracyS: We don't ask for your blind trust, we ask for your responsible intelligence.