When we created our DirectDemocracyS system, we decided to always be on the right side, and to do so, we created one of our five special groups, entirely dedicated to logic, common sense, truth, reality, research, consistency, and mutual respect. A long name for fundamental activities that make DirectDemocracyS credible, reliable, loyal, sincere, and with shared official positions.
But let's talk about these official positions right away, because perhaps some, studying our system, might believe that those who join us can somehow be forced to think as they're told. It would be wrong and counterproductive for us to teach anything, to anyone, or to try to manipulate people to change their way of thinking. For DirectDemocracyS and all its members, it's important to learn from everyone who joins us. We apply the same method to our official positions, which are decided by large majorities, based on the importance of the various decisions. There's not just an internal majority that decides, and a minority that opposes, but often, for some official positions, quorums of 66%, 75%, 85%, even 95% are required, and for very important rules and positions, and therefore, for fundamental decisions and positions, even unanimity is required. Let's take a brief but clear example. If we decide to take an official position, determined according to our voting rules, based on the various quorums established by the respective groups, that will be the official position of the entire DirectDemocracyS system. The decision must be supported by everyone, but those who disagree can express themselves freely, distinguishing between "we" and "I." They must implement the decisions of our collective system, out of loyalty and respect for the democratic will, but they can say: "I disagree," and they can continue to work, individually and in groups, to demonstrate the value of their ideas. No one will ever be expelled for what they think, say, demonstrate, or write, if they do so in the appropriate ways, at the right times, and in the right places. This method prevents any internal conflict, any discrimination, and allows everyone to be truly free. This method of managing dissent makes us unique and inimitable, and for us it is a rule, and a fundamental methodology, for implementing unity in diversity.
DirectDemocracyS, through its technological integrations with allddsAI (we are the first and only AI democracy, with technology groups and human bridges), through the interface of our private ddsAI AI model, and above all through our specialist groups, composed of our official members, provides comprehensive, free, neutral, independent, and secure information to all its users, groups, and activities, ensuring a professional system and competent decisions. This is what makes us unique and inimitable, as it solves many of the problems of direct democracy, but also of representative democracy: incompetent decision-making and voting without the basis for optimal choices.
Let's explain this fundamental concept better.
Potentially infinite individual and group freedom, which ends exactly where the freedom of another individual or group begins, is not enough, resulting in pluralism and therefore authentic democracy.
A truly shared leadership, with power developed horizontally , therefore “from the bottom up”, and not even the collective property rights of all our members are enough.
To achieve the best results, completely competent decisions are required, which cannot be achieved without giving everyone who must vote and therefore decide the opportunity to have complete knowledge: 1. knowing the topic, or the candidates, 2. knowing all the various possibilities, and 3. knowing all the expected consequences for each of the possibilities.
How many times in old and failing traditional systems do voters have to decide on a popular referendum (usually politicized and rarely explained independently), or choose political parties (often voting out of habit, family tradition, having been manipulated, and in some cases even lied to, by programs often not fully implemented), or choose people to represent them—chosen not by you, but by their respective political parties, without the opportunity to know them and fully evaluate them? Essentially, you vote for people you've only heard speak for a few minutes, almost never with a cross-examination, and without the opportunity to ask all the questions yourself. In DirectDemocracyS, this doesn't happen, because it's our users/voters, on our platforms, who evaluate, select, and perform all the necessary activities to choose our political representatives. We do this with our political representative selection panels, which all our official members can participate in, with internal election campaigns at all levels, both online and in person, and with our closed online primary elections, which, if successful, allow our political organization to propose the best, most competent, and highly professional candidates.
Brief explanation. In many cases, we've seen candidates who are incompetent, or have actual conflicts of interest, or have a complete lack of meritocracy. This is impossible in DirectDemocracyS precisely because of our implementation rules, which allow everyone to be a protagonist, but only the best to obtain more important roles and greater responsibility. It's not just the rich, powerful, or famous who advance, but only those who truly deserve it. A brief example. We often cite the example of people famous on the internet, with many followers, and in many cases, in many countries, these influencers and "web personalities" often have the best intentions (they want to do a good job), but in many cases have serious shortcomings (they lack the skills to deliver what they promise), which therefore make them incompetent and unsuitable for certain roles. You might say: if they get the votes, they have every right to govern and make laws, and that's true, but the consequences aren't always good for everyone; Therefore, it is much better to have competent people who deserve to obtain important roles and greater responsibility.
Many political forces have elected political representatives, who often then made serious mistakes, even failing to keep their campaign promises. This is impossible at DirectDemocracyS, for simple reasons: 1. Political representatives are selected by our groups, which all our members can join; 2. Internal election campaigns are reserved for all our users with verified identities and members, who are entitled to vote; 3. Closed online primaries are held at various local levels, from the smallest to the largest, and are eliminatory, meaning only those with the most votes advance to the next round, where they will then participate in the actual election campaigns and elections. All our users/voters on our platforms can interact directly with our candidates, continuously. Not only that, we all decide together, each in their own areas of residence and citizenship, on the entire political program. This will then be implemented jointly by our political representatives and our users/voters on our platforms, thanks to comprehensive management and collective control by our voters/users on our platforms, before, during, and, for the first time in the world, even after the elections. Therefore, the relationship between our voters/users and our political representatives is the freest, most democratic, secure, and professional of all the alternatives to our system.
But why doesn't everyone do as we do? The motivations are tied to the logic of power, wealth, and fame; other political forces are often dominated by lobbies and very powerful, rich, and famous people. They don't simply serve the interests of the community, as ours do. They are often forced to serve the interests of a few, due to a lack of independence and neutrality. None of this can happen in DirectDemocracyS, thanks to shared leadership and collective ownership, which, together with complete management and control over political representatives, and properly informed users/voters, make DirectDemocracyS pioneering, unique, and inimitable. In addition to the control of external forces over the established political forces, there are also power logics with internal and external struggles, which prevent politicians from working for the common good, but force them to defend themselves and attack other political forces and other political representatives, often even those of their own political force. These internal and external struggles do not exist in DirectDemocracyS, because the system itself is designed to prevent such reprehensible behavior. Finally, there's the will. In other political forces, there's a focus on protagonism, with a few leaders and very few governing groups, who wield enormous power. In DirectDemocracyS, everything is equally distributed, but meritocracy is rewarded. This is demonstrated in various ways, especially through accumulated points and the evaluations of our specialist groups, which all our official members can join based on their expertise. When it comes to choosing in our internal, closed online primary elections, we know the points accumulated by each candidate, as well as the evaluations of our specialists, who create actual rankings based on the individual abilities of all the candidates. Obviously, the decisions are made by our authorized users, those with verified and guaranteed identities, demonstrated by the blue check mark next to their username (allowing for anonymity) in our social area and on our platforms. Seeing these rankings makes it easier for the most competent and skilled to win internally and represent us externally, in electoral campaigns and real elections. In all other systems, leaders or ruling groups can be attacked in various ways, damaging entire political forces. In DirectDemocracyS, this is impossible, thanks to shared leadership, collective ownership, and the division of representative roles. Those who carry out political representation activities cannot simultaneously manage our political organization and our system, and vice versa. This eliminates conflicts of interest and prevents the accumulation of power by a few individuals and groups. Even if someone were to attack, even unfairly, or through legal action, blackmail, or other methods, anyone in our system could never pose a threat to the entire system, which would collectively defend each of our members unjustly accused. For us, a person is innocent until the final appeal has been rejected and they have been definitively convicted. This applies both to those within our system and to those outside.
At DirectDemocracyS, programs are decided together—political representatives and our voters/users—on our platforms. They are implemented together, each with their own role, and can be changed, integrated, improved, innovated, and updated, depending on the various situations, by deciding everything together. At this point, everyone will ask: why only on your platforms? Why only your voters/users? On our platforms, our users/voters are protected, properly informed, and do not risk manipulation or ideological brainwashing. It is a safe space for us all to work together. Only our users/voters can manage and control our political representatives, because they are our political representatives, and they represent all of us, who are perhaps the first to assume full responsibility for every consequence of our every decision. Technically, others should also be held accountable: both the political forces and their political representatives, and all those who vote for them. At DirectDemocracyS, this responsibility is comprehensive, collective, and publicly declared. This is true not only of pursuing our own interests, but of all people, without discrimination, whether they voted for us or not. We have no preferences, but we recognize the values of equality and meritocracy, which must be guaranteed to everyone, always together, and continuously. Anyone can join us, and if they meet all the requirements, can be part of our shared leadership and our collective ownership, but they must do so by respecting all our rules, methodologies, instructions, and motivations, which make DirectDemocracyS innovative, alternative, and superior to all others, because it is more equitable, meritocratic, fair, and safe.
We have created a valid, truly functional alternative to all other systems, and for those who feel unrepresented by other political forces and the usual political representatives, our political organization welcomes anyone who wants to join us with the best intentions.