How we create an article and how we decide

What does it represent, a public information article?

How do you create, and publish, an informative article?

Who decides what to publish and when?

We have collected these 3 questions in a detailed answer, which is useful for us to help you understand the free and democratic mechanism behind what you see on our website. It will seem, at first glance, to be a very slow methodology, and for those on the outside, it may seem complicated. We guarantee you that this is not the case, in fact in some cases it took a few hours, but we could, in many cases, be even faster.

Our articles and our posts are of 2 types, public, i.e. also visible to our visitors, or private, therefore visible only to our users / voters, based on the type of user, based on permissions, after having access to our website.

Each article or post published, collectively, represents, for everyone, inside and outside, the official position of DirectDemocracyS, and of all its users / voters.

This method will be judged by superficial people as dictatorial, the fact of considering every position expressed, in a public way, as representative of all our users, but it has a very profound motivation, which we will explain here in a few lines, but on the which we will do, definitely some very detailed articles.

In every traditional political force, there is a clear hierarchy, in which a leader proposes, and his subordinates approve, every decision of the leader, to avoid internal clashes. Internal democracy, in any old political party, is practically non-existent.

In DirectDemocracyS, authentic democracy, and total freedom, are always present, and put into practice by everyone. But there is one condition. When we decide something together, the final decision, voted on democratically, represents the official position of each of our users / voters.

The reason is simple.

We are the only political force in the world, born to unite people, and internal struggles must be avoided, preventing even the slightest controversy. When deciding something, with our methodology, there is no internal struggle, for the simple reason that there is no need for it. By continuing to read, understanding our mechanism, every person with at least 2 functioning neurons will understand that we are not dictators, on the contrary, we are the only ones who are truly democratic and certainly free.

Who can propose an informative article?

Each of our registered users, with a verified identity, can propose any of their ideas, any of their projects, to be implemented collectively. To do this, all you need to do is fill out a form and send it with your idea, your project, briefly explaining not only the idea, the project, but also, and above all, the detailed reasons.

There are no ideas or projects that are rejected, on the contrary, based on our rules, a working group is immediately created, to which at least 5 new users are added, for local activities, and some hundreds, sometimes thousands, or many more, for international activities. When the idea is ready, it is voted on in its final form by those who created it, and based on the type of idea, all groups of specialists are involved, with all the experts who may be useful. At the end of the experts' work, every single idea is definitively voted on and sent to the proposal group, which analyzes it, votes on it in turn, and sends it to each special group, which in turn analyzes it, discusses it, and votes on it.

Finally, each of our registered users, with a verified identity, receives the final form of the idea, and must decide whether to approve it or reject it.

Each proposal must be motivated and must be elaborated in its final form, without being distorted. At each stage, we discuss, decide, and finally vote, according to our rules.

How do you vote?

We have often said that in DirectDemocracyS, we vote openly, with the obligation for each voter to justify their choice in detail. You vote only once, if the idea is approved by more than 50%, plus one vote, of our registered users, with verified identity, it is automatically approved, and represents our official position, of DirectDemocracyS, and of all its users / voters. If in the first 3 votes, there is no absolute majority of those entitled to vote, for approval or rejection, from the fourth vote, 50%, plus one vote, of the voters will be sufficient, also called, absolute majority, over the actual voters. Regardless of whether it is approved or rejected, each vote will have the same validity and will officially represent both DirectDemocracyS and all our users / voters.

The answer to the second question: how do you create and publish an informative article?

Based on ideas, projects, and proposals of each of our users / voters, with verified identity. In DirectDemocracyS, each person is the true protagonist, and there is a clear rule: no one will be blocked, or expelled, for their ideas, if these are expressed in the right place, at the right time, and in the right way.

Let's take a trivial example.

If one of our users / voters proposes his ideas in the public space, therefore allowing himself to speak, on behalf of all of us, he will be immediately blocked, and in case of repeat offenses, he will be expelled, and made persona non grata. Certainly not because of the idea expressed, but because in DirectDemocracyS, a single person never decides, but it is a group effort, which then must be made official, through everyone's vote, and then made public. This methodology allows us to never lose good ideas and useful proposals. There are thousands of working groups, and soon there will be tens of thousands, then hundreds of thousands, then millions, and then billions. Each person who joins us must propose their own ideas and develop their own projects, and based on everyone's decisions, they materialize. There have not been, and there will never be rejected ideas, or undeveloped projects, unless they involve one of the following cases: inciting violence, discrimination, and creating dangerous situations for a person. Let's take a banal example: you cannot decide to carry out a terrorist act, or a war. DirectDemocracyS, in all the countries in which it obtains the responsibility to govern with the citizens' vote, there will be no attacks of any kind, but only responses to possible aggressions, and only against those who order them, in a "surgical" way, eliminating any person, who ordered a violent action. And in these cases, with coalitions and international agreements, on the basis of clear and detailed rules.

Each article is conceived and developed, in a free and democratic way, by whoever had the idea, and by a group, more or less numerous, and with the help of all the groups of specialists involved. It is then approved, according to our rules, by the special groups, which simply note whether the idea or project complies with our rules, our values and our ideals. And finally, each new article is voted on, and if approved, it is published. Obviously, visitors only see the voted articles, which are published after any appeals have been evaluated.

Some of you will wonder: why are all the various activities not public and visible to all visitors?

In DirectDemocracyS, each user sees and collaborates only on the activities in which they are authorized, or, in certain cases, based on their user type. If we made public things not yet voted on, and not yet decided by all of us, in a definitive manner, we would only create confusion, and we would be accused, rightly, of saying one thing and doing another, making ourselves similar, from this point ofview, to the old traditional political forces. For these reasons, we publish something only after all the various stages necessary to decide all together. There may be cases, in emergency conditions, in which the steps are all done simultaneously, and therefore the decision is taken in real time, even in a few minutes, and cases in which we take all the time necessary. According to this methodology, the visible parts of our activities are less than 1% of all our real activities. For example, there are currently around 220 public articles published, but we are working on many tens of thousands of activities, in many working groups. And obviously, with the increase of our users / voters, all these activities, and all these working groups, will increase significantly, while all remaining orderly, safe, and fast, according to our rules, and our needs.

Publicly, each of us accepts the decisions of the majority, but internally, everyone is free to dissociate. Let's explain this concept better, because it exists, for a very important reason. When something is voted for by the majority of us, it is the official position of all of us, but in the vote, those who do not approve it must obviously justify their choice in detail, and if it turns out to be right, they will be able to obtain the right recognition. But we will talk about scores, recognition of merit, prizes, and other similar activities in another article. Suffice it to say that we punish all those who do not respect all our rules, but we reward in many ways all those who obtain excellent, concrete results and have impeccable behavior.

So, to answer the third question, who decides what to publish, and when?

The answer is simple, every single one of our verified registered users, and all of our verified registered users, together.

At this point, many of our visitors will say: you are not free and democratic, but you are the dictatorship of the majority over the minority.

To these, hopefully few visitors, with slightly foggy brains, we ask: in real elections, to put political representatives to represent citizens in the institutions, who wins? We'll answer you, in almost all the world, the one who gets a majority of 50% plus one vote wins. In many cases, with unworkable coalitions, and with prizes for the major political parties, often, therefore, one governs with just over 40%, or even less, of the voters. Warning: we wrote about voters, not about those who have the right to vote. If we calculated the percentages obtained by individual political parties on who has the right to vote, you would realize that it is often the minority that governs over the majority. And the people, complicit in all this, come to teach us, what is right and what is wrong? We do not accept lessons in morality from those who support the theft of power, to the detriment of voters, carried out by all other political forces, with the exception of DirectDemocracyS. And we at DirectDemocracyS can certainly give the lessons of democracy to everyone, because we are the only ones in the world who are free and authentically democratic.

But we ask you a question. Is traditional politics better, of the old parties, in which a single man, or a few men decide on everything, or is DirectDemocracyS better, in which we decide everything, all together? Better are the old traditional political parties, in which no one can propose anything, or DirectDemocracyS, which encourages and invites each of its voters to propose ideas and projects, to be implemented all together.

We and them are completely different, and certainly we are completely innovative, and absolutely alternative to all other political forces.

Some people will ask themselves, what are expert groups for? To help each of our users / voters to choose and decide in an informed, complete, honest, loyal and independent manner, knowing not only all the various possibilities, but also the consequences of each choice. By forcing anyone who votes in our elections to do so in a way visible to everyone, justifying in detail every decision taken, we will always know who to blame for any, and certainly irrelevant, wrong decisions of ours.

Every vote, after all, is an assumption of responsibility, with related consequences. In DirectDemocracyS everything is evident, and verifiable by anyone who joins us, according to our rules.

Another difference between us and everyone else is that we know, and will always know, who is the culprit, and we will always find a way to remedy, all together, any small and involuntary errors.

But you will all have understood, we are different, and certainly better, and time, as always, will prove us right.

One last thing, some of you may be wondering, why, only users/voters, with verified identities, can propose, and vote, in our decisions and internal elections. Simply, for the assumption of responsibility, which must be done only by people with identities, verified and guaranteed, by our security groups. Even in real elections, before voting, we identify ourselves. Furthermore, we will reveal a secret to you, even our partially verified users (who have sent an image, with their face, with their photo ID nearby, clearly visible), or, our new users (unverified), but even all our visitors, who use the contact form for proposals, can propose ideas and projects, but also articles to publish.

We do not reject good ideas, indeed, we never reject, for any reason, any idea, whoever proposes it.

The link to send us your ideas is this:

https://www.directdemocracys.org/contacts/infos-contacts/proposals

valid for everyone.

To find out how to fill out and send a contact form, read this article:

https://www.directdemocracys.org/law/instructions/for-contacts/instructions-for-contact-forms

reminding you that ideas and anonymous proposals, if they are accepted and used, cannot be rewarded in any way.

Thank you all!

In conclusion, those who want to teach us things are endearing to us, because now, knowing how we work, they will realize that we have a practically infallible method for choosing in the best way. Those who join us, with the idea of turning everything upside down, criticizing everything, and not respecting the work of those who joined us before them, however nice they may be, will have to change their attitude, because one of our fundamental rules is, that all previous rules, our values, our ideals, our principles, our methodologies, and all previous activities, can be integrated and improved by adding others, without ever distorting or modifying the previous ones. This rule will allow us to never lose our identity, while always remaining innovative.