Direct Democracy is a political system where everybody has a vote on all issues related to managing our country.
Simple and straight forward, huh?
Theoretically it is simple and resonates with our desire to be heard, but practically it feels unsettling.
The term “Direct Democracy” is sometimes used to describe state initiatives and referendums.
While this is a valid smaller form of direct democracy, what is referred to below is full direct democracy.
Now let’s expand our definition of Direct Democracy, and include the idea that the citizenry will also formulate the laws.
That is, we won’t be voting YES/NO on laws that someone else designed.
We will democratically be discussing and forming the directions we want to go.
The citizenry will take the power from top to bottom.
Compare Direct Democracy to our current “Representative Democracy,” where we vote for other people to make our decisions.
“Representative Democracy” is what we started with in America, and what our constitution spells out.
Therefore, we have work to do in changing our constitution.
The article called “How to get there” presents a pathway to a peaceful constitutional change.
See also: What’s wrong with Representative Democracy?
In Direct Democracy, the people make the laws, and so Congress is basically unnecessary.
The President can also be eliminated, at least as a position of power.
All government workers, President included, become our employees.
Direct Democracy is a vast shift in the power structure.
Interestingly, our country’s founders wrestled with the idea of pure direct democracy, but couldn’t feel confident in its workings.
They were likely right given that time period.
When one considers having to regularly ride your horse to a meeting place, for both discussion and voting, the task seems impractical.
But we now live in a different type of world.
Today it is not unthinkable to consider a new style of democracy.
It’s remarkable that it has only been in the last 20 years or so, that we now have computers and the Internet in virtually every home and pocket in America.
The Internet has the potential to provide both the debate forum, and the voting mechanism needed for Direct Democracy.
Consider how unique you are to live in this period of time.
Just as in 1776, it is our time to look hard at our situation, recognize where power is out of control, and bravely determine to fix it.
We can be patriots who demand more freedom.
A pivotal tool will be a democratic Decision Website, owned by the citizenry and run by the citizenry.
A place where every perspective from across America is discussed, analyzed, and fact checked.
Every pro and con gets challenged in a logical fashion.
And we emphasize finding solutions that incorporate all of the pros, and remove or lessen the cons.
Imagine even now, how we could benefit from such a tool.
P.S. This (decisionwebsite.org) is not the Decision Website.
This is a website about the concept.
When you envision having to vote on every issue in America, it seems overwhelming and almost ludicrous.
But if we think outside of the box, address troublesome issues, and recognize that there are factors we can change…
then the task is less daunting.
Please consider Direct Democracy and read on.
We have a lot at stake.
See also: Why haven’t I heard of Direct Democracy?
So let’s break it apart.
Scope – What will the people control?
Information – How will “the people” get solid information?
Voting – How will people easily vote?
Responsibility – Do we all have to vote on every decision?
Majority – What keeps the majority from dominating the minority?
Government – Who will do the day-to-day operations?
Judicial Courts – What role will courts play?
Complexity – Are the nation’s issues too complex?
Money and Taxes –What if we vote to give ourselves new benefits?
What to Expect – a list.
Scope
This plan for a Direct Democracy can go beyond our U.S. government.
We can use the same system for our state government.
It can apply to our city and county governments.
Once we create a workable Decision Website,
we can apply that tool to all kinds of applications.
Most notably, we will use a form of the decision website
to let us democratically manage the Decision Website itself.
We can decide on employees, website features, policies, and finances.
We can also use this model to democratically run a media network.
It can be applied to any type of organization such as a Red Cross.
Government agencies can use it as their management tool.
The tool will be revolutionary wherever applied.
Information
How will we, the people, get information to make decisions?
This is a crucial element.
The existing model of the media will not work.
Television, newspapers, magazines, press feeds, etc. are either privately owned, or in the case of non-profit organizations, controlled by a small group of people.
Someone is picking and choosing what you hear, and strongly suggesting how you should think.
We will need to solve this with a democratically run media network.
Interestingly, the same type of Decision Website we will build for voting,
can be used to democratically run a media network.
We can then decide how news is acquired and presented.
We can eliminate sound bites, sensationalism, and spin.
Our media network can guarantee a balance of perspectives.
It can summarize as well as go into depth.
Our media can revolutionize our understanding of the world.
See also: What’s wrong with today’s media?
Our current government keeps a lot of secrets.
This secret information is critical to understanding our world.
Of course, some secrets like defense are necessary.
But government also restricts the flow of information to protect their personal reputations, to further their personal careers, to hide impropriety, and because they don’t trust us citizens with knowledge.
Transparency is the answer.
But not how the term is used by today’s politicians, where they pat themselves on the back, and offer to show us “some” material.
We need transparency that assumes everything is available, and only items that the people deem acceptable, are able to be kept secret.
We will primarily use the Internet to get information.
But, no more Google this and Google that.
It is time to get our source of information structured, and trusted.
We will build a Decision Website where the information is organized, and all sides are presented.
The Decision Website is not only our tool for voting, but it is our tool for discussion.
Issues are debated, fact-checked, synthesized, and simplified.
No more sound bites, misleading commercials, political spin, TV personality opinions, biased politicians, and repetitive psychological persuasion.
It is all logical thinking from here on out.
But who controls the Decision Website?
This is critical for trust, so who is it?
Well, it’s us… the citizens.
We fund it, we choose the employees, and we decide how the website will be run.
It is a democratically run website, that results in a democratic information system.
Notice that there is no government involvement, and there is no private ownership of this website.
It is ours – yours and mine.
In a sense, the Decision Website becomes the focal point of government.
It supplants Congress and Presidential authority.
It reveals what the people want to do, and then government employees carry it out.
Let’s explore this Decision Website a bit.
Who gets to add content to the decision website?
Any of us.
There are a lot of smart people in this country, who would love the opportunity to participate.
We are replacing the 535 decision makers in congress with millions of bright individuals.
And for every person stubbornly pushing a personal agenda, there will be countless people with the desire for fairness, and wanting the best solution for the entire country.
The Decision Website is not a clunky Internet forum, or a thread of comments.
It is a website that helps us manage our information, reducing redundancy, culling inaccuracy, broadening our thinking to include all sides of an issue, and pushing us to summarize as well as give supportive data.
Most importantly, it helps us move towards resolutions accepted by the vast majority.
Some folks will participate heavily, writing ideas and embracing the discussion.
Others will play the watch-dog, up-voting and down-voting each aspect of an idea, whether it be for accuracy, balance, or clarity of writing.
The discussion will always be moving toward a conclusion.
Every challenge and every point of view gets addressed, and if not… then we rally, and step in to make our concerns known.
The Decision Website will have techniques to ensure that a simple majority, cannot abuse the minority positions.
Many of us will just watch the debate, contemplate the issues and ensure our perspectives are represented.
There will be a drill-down effect, where readers start with graphical displays of the arguments, then on to summaries with straight-forward language, and the ability to dig in whenever we want more detail.
Statistics and analysis will be available, to see which areas of an issue are contentious, where folks claim they are not being heard, how differing opinions are being resolved, and what alternatives are being suggested.
Polls will show us how the rest of the country is feeling, and thank goodness, they are our polls… trustworthy polls.
It will be enlightening.
Most of us will wait for the result of the discussions.
Watch-dog groups will keep us informed of the progress, and whether our participation is needed.
The end product will be clear and succinct summaries.
The language must be understandable for all of us.
As a nation, our understanding of issues will deepen.
The Decision Website is going to revolutionize our democracy.
See also: How does the Decision Website work?
Voting
How will we vote?
We vote on the Internet using the Decision Website.
You don’t have to vote on everything, but you can if you want.
Remember, by the time we vote…
the issue has been debated, our voice was already heard as we up/down- vote each sub-topic, and the issue has been amended
to satisfy as many opinions as possible.
Our first main vote will be for our intention or national opinion.
For instance if the issue is immigration, our national opinion consists of our thinking and approach to admittance, illegal entry,
national security, border protection, impact, etc.
It is what we want to accomplish in an immigration policy.
No legalese here, or any cryptic language, or overwhelming detail.
However, when we vote, our national opinion becomes binding.
Laws will follow that must spring from our national opinion.
The Constitution will require this fact.
We will vote on both the national opinion and on each subsequent law.
The language of laws needs to be very precise.
It can be extremely difficult to understand this wording.
Lawyers and experts will then have the prestige of being our critical watchdogs, and ensuring that the law reflects our full intent
from the national opinion.
How do we make the Decision Website secure, so it cannot be hacked or manipulated?
We can use a computer method called blockchain, which was invented for the digital currency, Bitcoin.
Blockchain’s design spreads the system across an unlimited number of computers, such that a hack into one computer gets rejected, because all of the other computers recognize the fraud.
It’s a system in the hands of the people.
The question of “who” can vote is a bit problematic.
Citizens must register on the Decision Website.
Some people do not trust the government system with another registration process.
But this and many other distrust issues go away once “we the people” are in control.
See also: More on Registration
Each citizen’s account needs to be secure.
Passwords, biometrics, and secondary security methods are all available.
As to the question of everybody having a computer and Internet access, this is so easily solved.
First, your cell phone is a computer and can be used for voting.
Your cell signal is essentially Internet access.
And then, we simply take an ultra-thin slice of the Pentagon’s 600 billion dollar annual budget, and ensure that everyone has Internet access.
Responsibility
How can each of us be responsible for all of these decisions?
First, many people will love to get involved.
This is their world and they want a say-so.
We will have millions of watchdogs overseeing our government.
Compare this to the 535 members of congress that we now must trust.
Second, everyone’s vote is not critical on every issue.
You are not voting for a representative, who can do whatever they want for the next four to six years.
You are voting on a single issue, a direction, or an opinion.
And besides, it will be easier to change our initial decision, when new data arises or our thinking needs to change.
We can make participation easy for ourselves.
Imagine that there are advocacy groups, for people that hold a particular point of view.
The advocacy group is a watchdog of our system.
For example, consider an ocean wildlife advocacy, for spawning salmon and such.
You can subscribe to them, follow their lead, or simply use them to help monitor issues.
The advocacy group can issue warnings that alert you to upcoming votes, and allow you to easily vote based on their recommendations.
You don’t have to follow their lead.
You are not locked in to the advocacy group.
Advocacy groups are not a political party with a broad set of opinions, but rather a focused concern.
Advocacy groups won’t work like special interest groups, that weasel their way into the favor of representatives.
They are just a tool.
See also: Direct Democracy will consume our time
Majority
What keeps the majority from unreasonably ruling over the minority?
For instance, “Scenic homes must be abandoned to restore natural habitat!”
Urban and suburban dwellers are easily the majority voting bloc.
This is a very important question,
one that the founders wrestled with in 1776.
It is why we have the Bill of Rights to protect the individual, and the Senate has two representatives per state, regardless of the state’s population.
It is also why we have districts within the state for representatives to protect the voice of the sparse rural community.
The majority should not be allowed to oppress the minority.
One of our first steps in Direct Democracy should be to guarantee our Bill of Rights and our basic individual freedoms.
Our new bill of rights might be more robust than our current one.
Next, we learn how to fairly compensate and protect people, when they suffer the consequences of our decisions.
If we want to stop fracking, then the loss of drilling jobs needs to be solved as well.
It is to our advantage and should be a common goal, to give everyone a secure and good quality of life.
The big step though, is to move from a simple majority rule to a consensus model.
Consensus attempts to get everyone on board with each issue.
Consensus has the goal of addressing everyone’s concerns, and adjust the solution accordingly.
It is looking at the pros and cons of each side of an issue, and resolving them as best we can.
Most of our divisiveness occurs when we simply choose a side, and dig in our heels.
But if we address each point, incorporate the pros and offset the cons, we can come to a new direction to pursue together.
The Decision Website will have methods to force consensus, and protect minority opinions.
We might find that citizens actually have very similar ideas.
We all want a good quality of life.
We all demand freedom.
The polarization that is now apparent in the country will diminish, as it was caused by our current two party system, and by the misinformation in our media establishment.
See also: What is Consensus?
See also: Majority Rule
Government
Who is the government in a Direct Democracy?
Well, they are employees of the people.
They will be following the will of the people.
Government employees will have no real power.
Our current government is divided into departments, and further subdivided into agencies, councils, and boards.
There are 15 departments like: Defense, State, and Homeland Security.
And lots of agencies like: Forest Service, FEMA, CIA, FBI, FAA, ATF, and IRS.
They are all referred to below as agencies.
Agencies carry out or administer our laws and get things done.
These agencies are controlled by the branches of government,
but the executive presidential branch controls most of them.
Within each agency is a hierarchy of directors, deputies, managers, etc.
There is currently a great deal of power in an agency, both with the President or whoever controls it, and within the agency structure itself.
While an agency must follow the constitution and the laws we make, there is lots of interpretation, regulations, and wiggle-room
for the agency to act outside of the will of the people.
This agency power needs to be restructured, so as to let citizens serve as watchdogs, and eventually participate in decisions.
It is a huge project to transition agencies and their millions of employees, to a new form of management.
It won’t be done quickly, because they provide critical services.
It will occur after we have made good progress on forming opinions and making laws.
After all, the agencies need to reflect our new way of thinking.
But to mitigate their power immediately, our transparency requirements must go into place.
Within reason, everything they do and all of the decisions, must be documented and posted online.
They currently have a public face, posting online and in print what they want us to know.
Now we want to see what goes on internally.
See also: Is transparency a Problem?
Our society is accustomed to having a hierarchy of power in government.
Plus, we use the same hierarchical model in business, from your supervisor on up to the CEO.
The hierarchical structure can often make decisions quickly, and so has some efficiency in time.
But look at the cost.
The power of decision-making resides in a small group of people, and those below feel powerless.
Even more important is the quality of the decisions.
Not only are there biases and motives within the decision-makers, but we are not getting the full input from citizens.
We can do better.
So imagine how this might play out.
Via our main Decision Website, we make some constitutional changes.
Agencies then become governed by their respective Agency Decision Website.
This website has the same principles and techniques as our main Decision Website.
It allows citizens to debate issues, and move towards decisions.
We eventually can manage the policies of the agency, as well as administer the employees and internal processes.
Citizens could then control the full extent of the government.
Employees of each agency will have a lot to say in their website.
They know the agency regulations, how people respond, where the trouble spots exist, and what’s inefficient.
But the citizens are the ones who have to jump through hoops, and are affected by the policies.
Citizens need a voice, too.
Citizens will also breathe fresh air into the agency thinking.
Psychologically, an agency tends to get immersed in a certain mindset.
Citizens can offer ideas and perspectives outside of that box.
Not many of us citizens will want to be involved at this level.
The important point is that the agency is transparent, there are watchdogs paying attention, and citizens can join in the process as needed.
Most of the activity will come from agency employees, affected citizens, and advocacy groups.
Advocacy groups are the watchdogs that inform citizens, when they see agency problems of improprieties, business influence, and straying from our intent.
So do we need congressional employees or a President?
If so, it will just be a job or a role and not a power position.
That’s the goal after all…
removing the concentrated power and giving it to citizens.
When it comes to emergencies, we will need special procedures and directives in place.
For emergencies, we could have expedited voting, and special decision making when needed.
We can make sure that we have not hamstrung our nation with indecision.
If an international conflict breaks out, we will have guidelines that allow military leaders to act quickly.
But, we also retain the mechanism to change course as the dust settles.
If we allow non-transparency in some military situations, we at least need to broaden the oversight from a few elite leaders to a larger group of the citizenry.
The military loves their secrecy.
But let’s debate, and decide what is necessary.
Don’t let yourself be scared away from real democracy,
by the demands of secrecy from saber rattlers.
As it is now, we may not be getting the true picture.
Consider that we just spent from $2 – $5 trillion dollars, in our War on Terrorism to prevent another 9/11.
Yes, that’s trillions.
Consider that the national debt rose from $17 to $22 trillion in this period (2001-2018).
No matter how much you argue the figures, the amount seems vastly disproportionate to what we thought we would spend.
Wouldn’t this be an interesting debate for us citizens, especially if we had all the information?
See also: USDebtClock.org
Judicial Courts
The court system can still be the judge of constitutionality.
The big difference is that the constitution has changed.
Courts can be essential in protecting our civil rights.
And courts can guarantee that the government is following the will of the people.
How we choose judges, how long they serve, and whether they can be fired, is up to us when we revise the constitution.
The court system should be reviewed.
There might be more democratic ways it could be controlled.
The rules found in court rooms go back centuries.
But these were centuries in a different time period, under kings and less complex times.
The courts’ sacred procedures and precedents, could benefit from fresh eyes.
See also: Judicial Branch
Complexity
Are the nation’s issues too complex for Direct Democracy?
Look at it from the other side of the coin.
We will be injecting so many intelligent people into the decision making process, that the quality of our solutions will improve dramatically.
Imagine as we work together to manage our country, as we use solid logic in our debates, as we seek shared solutions with consensus, our levels of contention will drop, and our viewpoints will draw closer together.
The world of politics will get simpler.
Decisions will get easier.
Don’t be intimidated by the current size of legislative bills.
These large bills are often bundles of smaller laws.
They are also in their final legal format, quite verbose and full of legalese.
This is not how we will manage our laws.
First we will formulate a national opinion on a subject.
Consider a discussion on education, where we decide what we want to accomplish, how it should be organized, and how federal money should be distributed.
It’s complex, so we need to break the issue apart, and tackle it piece by piece.
It is a huge project, but well within our ability.
The language used in our national opinion will be understandable by virtually everyone.
Once we accomplish this national opinion, our work is never lost.
We can adjust and modify it, but we don’t have to start a new debate every time we want to create a new law.
Thereafter, the actual laws, which can be so complicated, must be derived from our original opinion.
Watchdogs who understand legalese will ensure this is the case.
Foreign affairs will change dramatically in a positive way.
Our change to Direct Democracy will inspire other countries, and many will follow our course.
Nations controlled by the consensus of their everyday people, will not be the threat like their current rulers exhibit.
Now imagine how much complexity and conflict went out of the world, when all of the people have common goals of a good quality of life.
See also: The Complexity of Laws
Money and Taxes
Will Direct Democracy cost us more money?
It could cost us a lot more money.
What if we vote to double our safety net, or triple our Social Security benefit, or pay for all health care, or increase the protection for unemployment and disability, or create a Universal Basic Income?
Wow!
It makes sense that as we make decisions,
we also force ourselves to pay for those decisions.
We could raise taxes dramatically on corporations, but in our new logical debate process, we need to address the consequences of that decision.
No more finger-pointing at the other political party.
It’s our world now, and we are to blame for our decisions.
So instead, we take monetary consequences into consideration, and adjust our decision accordingly.
It would not be surprising if one of our biggest discussions would be our relationship to the economic system.
While we have taken back political power, we have left another strong power structure untouched.
Do we restructure our economic system or do we regulate it?
Do we deregulate the economic system and see if it gets energized, and provides us a stable system of work, pay, and opportunity?
There are a lot of interesting debates in front of us.
What is important is that all of us will be allowed to express our opinions, and choose the world in which we want to live.
See also: Is Direct Democracy the only choice?
What to expect…
• No more voting for an entire party-line because of one issue (ex: Gun Rights).
• No more straight-party-line voting, because you dislike something about the other party (ex: those Democrats promote welfare).
• No more lesser-of-two-evils voting.
• No more TV campaign commercials with spin.
• No more personal attacks in TV campaign commercials.
• No more lies or half-truths in TV campaign commercials.
• No more psychological tricks in TV campaign commercials.
• No more polarization in issues (i.e. consensus is used).
• No more money in politics.
• No more distrust in government (i.e. because we are transparent and citizen controlled).
• No more manipulation of public sentiments.
• No more “personality” voting.
• No more secrets in government.
• No more spin, lies, and half-truths.
• Voting with full information instead of what someone else wants you to see.
• Logic will be king.
• The full breadth of our opinions will be heard.
• We will all grow in understanding our world.
Full Direct Democracy!
It is time!
We can make it work!