A broad and widespread social movement

 

 

I understand that using iVoting goes hand in hand with the following approach:

– we are building a universal social movement whose aim is to change the law at the state level

– iVoting makes it easier because it contains the personal data of all citizens

The use of iVoting is a novelty, but the attempt to build a broad social movement – is not. It does not seem that access to personal data alone will be able to change the fate of this initiative. Here's why:

– 80% of people are against direct democracy

– the remaining 20% will be active only partially

– it might seem that even 1% of this 20% is quite a considerable force (about 60,000 people) but in my opinion the crowd will not reason in this way. The crowd will say that since the majority is against it, there is no point in doing anything.

 

I completely ignore the other obstacles:

– eParlament was taken over by politicians

– access to referendums is limited from above

– iVoting is owned by a private company

Any of these facts can undo the effort, but the main obstacle is what I described at the beginning.

 

– there is also an "optimistic" scenario in which eParlament succeeds and gets into parliament. In such a situation, other politicians will not have any problem to use the "divide and rule" method to play both the representatives of the eParlament and the voters themselves. This is because the members of the eParlament will have no common interest. There will be no common businesses and prosperity built in small groups and confederations of groups. I do not think that the noble intentions of eParlament alone will prevail, for example, with the promise of an increase in the pension. eParlamet must offer tangible prosperity to win the electoral sausage.

 

Since the past has already shown that 80% are against direct democracy, it is known that the creation of a universal broad social movement is not possible. This is not possible because before that you have to somehow prove to the majority that direct democracy is OK. The only way I see it is to do it in a small group. A small group has the advantage that people are able to get to know each other. Such knowledge eliminates the problem with the illusion of above-averageness, which allows the group to start. Building prosperity in such a group is tangible and undeniable proof that WIR works. Prosperity means that there is something to defend. This will be useful when each member of the group stands alone with a paper election form and without any supervision will have to vote for our candidate or for the current politician who promises to steal less from him. Our representatives will also have motivation because we will be able to take away their prosperity, which we have built together.

 

Your involvement will work to your disadvantage. You will be convinced for a very long time that a universal social movement is a good approach. You will be stuck in this belief for so long that when hope finally dies, you will no longer have the strength to try a different approach.