Perfect balance

For those who believe that DirectDemocracyS does not invent anything new, that it is too simple a system, but also for those who tell us that we are too complicated, we must once again explain some fundamental concepts.

Our system has many features that make it unique, inimitable, credible, functional, fair, just, loyal, sincere, orderly, organized, resilient, and secure. Our attention to every tiny detail allows us to prevent any potential problems, to always be free, democratic, self-funded, independent, neutral, competent, and professional. Unfortunately, all our rules, methodologies, instructions, and motivations make us seem overly complicated to those who become discouraged and lack the patience to carefully study, with an open mind, all our public information, which is highly detailed but often repetitive. Because in DirectDemocracyS, everything we do, in a certain way, is connected to something else, and without a 360-degree view, we risk not understanding why we have made, are making, and will have to make certain choices in the past, present, and future.

But it is also a simple system with 4 brilliant and pioneering ideas and innovations, never before brought together in a single system.

1. Our leadership is truly and completely shared, in which each of our registered users, with verified and guaranteed identity, and therefore their right to vote, is an integral and fundamental part of everything we decide, based on very free, democratic, and, above all, correctly informed voting rules by our groups of specialists.
2. Our collective ownership right of all our official members, over the entire system.
3. The perfect balance between traditional hierarchies based entirely on merit, democracy, management, and bottom-up control. The previous sentence results in complete management and control by our voters over our political representatives, before, during, and, for the first time in the world, even after elections. At the system level, this also means complete, ongoing management and control by all our official members, over all our official representatives, and over higher-level users (who manage our system).
4. Micro-groups for a physical presence of our system, and our political organization, in every geographic, territorial, administrative, and electoral area of the world, up to 1,000 inhabitants, also making us independent of the Internet, technology (which we will always use anyway), and electricity.

For anyone with even a hint of insight, these four features alone brilliantly and definitively solve almost all the world's problems, making our system innovative and completely alternative to all others—certainly the best. The integration of all the necessary implementing rules allows us, all together, to create a mechanism that works perfectly, exactly the same way, both with the few initial users and potentially, over time , with the entire human population, and with all technological integrations.

Now let's talk about how legal some of our political activities are in certain countries, such as those where there is no mandate requirement, and therefore after the elections, a political representative can leave the political party with which he was elected.

In these cases, two analyses must be made: is it right to limit this ability to "change one's mind" to all political representatives, and therefore prohibit them from leaving the political party they were elected to, to join another political party, or to form their own political party, or to become independent? This freedom must be maintained and guaranteed for all! In old systems, potentially despicable situations often hide behind the guise of democratic, technically fair and just rules. Actual blackmail, internal and external struggles, and completely flawed activities often occur, almost always with hidden agendas. For us at DirectDemocracyS, the interests of the entire population always come first, and in our political organization, we take loyalty to the people we represent seriously. When a citizen votes in an election, choosing a person, they often also choose the political party to which they belong. If a political representative wishes to leave the political force that nominated and elected them, they should always be able to do so, but with the obligation to first resign from any political representative role, obtained through the people's vote. Otherwise, the relationship of trust between candidate and voter is undermined. To those who say, "You can do that in certain countries," we simply respond by saying that we, and anyone who joins us, have two security measures in place to prevent such behavior, which is a true betrayal. The first is an initial oath, taken by anyone who joins us, to respect all our rules. The second is a document of irrevocable early resignation for personal reasons, legalized and signed by each of our representatives (whether political, i.e., participants in primary elections, online, closed, or official, i.e., managers and controllers of our system).

If someone doesn't keep the initial oath—and many people try to cheat in other systems—in DirectDemocracyS, they must respect the second one, because they don't sign it after winning the real election, but rather before they can even participate in our closed, online primary elections, which are conducted as specified in our implementing rules. These resignations are available to their voters, on our platforms, which have complete management and control over their political representatives.

We are the only completely free system that implements authentic democracy, and we do so efficiently because we take seriously the roles of those who should hold all the power in a democracy (the people), and those who are merely representatives of the people in the various institutions. Before doing anything, each of our political representatives must ask permission from those who, with their vote in elections, granted them political representation in the various institutions. All our voters are continuously and comprehensively informed by groups of specialists to enable them to make informed and competent decisions. They are the protagonists, managers, and controllers of those who represent them in the structures of the state, at every level.

The irrevocable early resignation for personal reasons is an additional guarantee that voters will always be the ones to decide, as is right in a true democracy. Therefore, anyone who criticizes or seeks to obstruct this fundamental rule and methodology of ours should respect our decision, which is shared and the choice of free people who voted to perpetuate this true and continuous democracy.

There are countries where political representatives are not obligated to respect the will of their voters, but whoever is our candidate, if elected with our votes, will be obligated to respect this rule of ours, and all the others. In traditional political forces, promises are often made, which are not always fully kept. They do this to win elections, and then do what they please. With DirectDemocracyS, this is not allowed, and at the center are only the voters who command, and the political representatives who implement every decision of those who gave them the power of representation. In our system, power always remains with the people, and is not transferred for many years to political representatives, and their respective political forces. Democracy is not suspended, rendering the people powerless spectators for long periods of time; in DirectDemocracyS, power is shared, for the common good. We repeat this constantly so that everyone understands!

We're often asked: what if our registered users with verified and guaranteed identities (shared leadership) and our official members (collective owners) don't vote for our and their candidates (chosen in our closed online primaries) in the real elections? It would be foolish of them not to vote in the real elections for the people they choose to represent them politically in various institutions, but everyone is free to vote for whomever they choose, even if we hope there are very few who would prefer to vote for other political forces and other political representatives. It would certainly be a mistake on their part, a true inconsistency, a self-harm, but also a violation of their freedom.

Others ask: what if a superpower had a national president, and our voters, on our platforms, ordered a military strike, perhaps with nuclear warheads, would it be a disaster? It would be impossible because in DirectDemocracyS, any violent action is prohibited except for defensive purposes. Therefore, a direct, preemptive attack (of any kind) on another country would be impossible to vote for, and therefore impossible to order from our president. Ours is a peaceful system, which aims to implement mutual respect among all people. Many decisions by our users/voters require majorities based on the importance of the decisions to be made, with minimum quorums for approval. These vary, much like internal decisions and votes, where 50% + 1 vote is not always sufficient. We have groups to decide the various quorums for each of our votes, which all our official members can participate in.

We respond once again to those who fear that if we win elections everywhere, DirectDemocracyS would be a dictatorship of the majority over the minority. To all these people, we respond with a simple question: in all the world's democracies, in every country, who gets the votes needed to win, governs and makes the laws, for long years, without ever seeking binding advice from their voters (except for a few rare popular referendums)? We at least share power with anyone who joins us, and, very importantly, anyone who meets the requirements and respects our rules can join us, at any time, to share this enormous power with all of us, which will bring enormous collective responsibilities, which we will all assume. If everyone can join us, it is not a power reserved for a few, but a power shared with all.

If others win, govern, and make laws for many years, without ever asking anyone for anything, simply by obtaining 50% +1, everything is fine, and there is no dictatorship of the majority over the minority, but the only "problem" arises: when will we win? Let's also consider the fact that those who win often do so with massive abstentionism; in certain countries, in certain elections, even more than half of the voters don't show up to vote; therefore, the majority rightly depends only on the number of voters, and not on those entitled to vote. If we then consider that in certain countries there are coalitions that with 40% obtain majority bonuses, and govern and make laws for many years, obtaining less than 50% +1 (of actual voters), then there are "dictatorships" of minorities over majorities, and no one complains. But there are people who complain that DirectDemocracyS is a single, united political force that, if it wins, governs and makes laws alone, and if it loses the elections, it forms a healthy, honest, loyal, useful, reliable, and fair opposition. While other political forces form alliances, form coalitions, and collaborate together, we, precisely because we are united in diversity, have within us people of all political ideologies, who discuss and decide together, for the common good, based on free and democratic voting rules. We have no need for alliances, agreements, and coalitions, but at the right time, we will be able to welcome within our ranks not only political representatives from other political forces, but also entire traditional political forces who wish to join our system. We will never eliminate freedom and democracy; we will protect political pluralism and all opposition, including to ourselves.

In DirectDemocracyS the people do not delegate power:

he exercises it, monitors it and takes responsibility for it, every day.