This petition is a private, non-public document, which is available exclusively for the personal use of natural persons who have not had access to any part of its contents before it was first made available to its target audience at https://academism.wordpress.com/2017/02/20/enabling-direct-democracy
The aim of the petition is to enable direct democracy – with or without the establishment of a new political party – by guaranteeing personal privacy, autonomy, bodily integrity, the transformability and openness of the political system and other potential preconditions for autonomous individual democratic participation through the following policies or reforms:
-All technologies are (“)legally(“) required to be publicly and transparently designed, developed and – whenever (“)legally(“) permitted – utilized. Without this and potentially several other requirements the implementation of some of the principles which may sometimes be attributed to, for instance, ”the rule of law” may not be possible even in theory. Victims of criminal offenses cannot, for instance, be expected to be able to describe the operational principles of technologies, which have required significant amounts of time and resources from a significant number of actors – including state actors – to develop, deploy and conceal from public attention.
-All potential means are utilized to extract all available information from former and current members of parliament, civil servants, business executives, journalists, reporters, judges, attorneys, the leadership of the police, the army, universities and religious organizations on their knowledge of and own participation in criminal offenses involving technologies which at least to some extent have been developed in secrecy without public oversight. In case such technologies have had an impact on the actually or potentially relevant legislation, assessment of whether criminal offenses have occurred and their respective seriousness may be based on legislation that was in force before the development or deployment of such technologies or which could have been expected to come into force, had the ongoing development or deployment of such technologies been widely known among the public. If there is a conflict between the rights of the victims and the rights of the perpetrators, the rights of the victims shall be secured. Were, for instance, it to be discovered that every member of parliament, top civil servant, executive of a large corporation, reporter, journalist, judge, attorney, the leadership of the police, the army, universities and religious organizations and a significant proportion of power-wielders in all areas of the society had been aware of and/or willingly and knowingly participated in large-scale non-consensual mind reading, mind control and torture of dissidents for years or decades, all such individuals could, according to the aforementioned principles, be executed.
-”The logic of a nuclear power” shall be implemented cost-effectively and availability will be extended to marginalized groups or specific victims of criminal offenses. A nuclear power in practice reserves the right to destroy the entire humanity in response to an attack targeted against itself. Such an objective may be attainable through various means, some of which may well be easier to implement, more reliable and/or cheaper than destroying the entire humanity through nuclear weapons in response to an attack. A state, group or individual victims of the aforementioned types of mind reading or mind control, for instance, could destroy the entire humanity – or at least a significant proportion of it – in case the parties behind such an attack do not stop their ongoing assault, execute the perpetrators and destroy all material obtained through their assault of non-consensual mind reading or mind control.
-The economic system will be reformed to enable the pursuit of the highest possible living standards and the largest conceivable degree of division of labor without the need to engage in the buying or selling of anything or anyone.
In case the personal privacy, autonomy and bodily integrity of every human being and other potential preconditions for autonomous individual democratic participation can be achieved and proven without destroying the entire humanity in the process, direct democracy can be implemented, for instance, as follows:
-Candidates who support direct democracy make a binding commitment to follow the majority preference of their voters in each, for instance, parliamentary vote if elected to the parliament.
-Every voter who votes for a candidate who supports direct democracy and wishes to participate in decision-making during the candidate’s term in case the candidate is elected records the entire voting process on the election day.
-After being elected each representative who supports direct democracy sets up, for instance, a closed internet group for everyone who is willing and able to prove his/her vote for a specific candidate in the elections with a video recording of the voting process. The group’s – and thus also the representative’s – position on every issue that the representative may vote on in, for instance, the parliament will be determined through a prior internal voting process among the members of the closed internet group. In principle the candidates supporting direct democracy in any given elections may also be legal rather than natural persons – for instance, voters’ co-operatives, which, if elected, would also determine who might be sent, for instance, to the parliament at any given point in time to vote according to the co-operative’s preferences or for other purposes through prior internal voting among the members of the voters’ co-operative. The names and voting decisions of individuals participating in the closed internet group’s or voters’ co-operative’s internal voting processes could be kept confidential, although disclosing such information to all members of such groups might improve the accuracy and reliability of the internal voting results.
-In case the representative or whoever the voters’ co-operative might send, for instance, to the parliament at any given point in time to physically press the correct button according to the co-operative’s prior internal voting results intentionally fails to follow the majority preference of the prior internal voting processes, such an individual could be fired immediately, prosecuted for, for instance, breach of contract and replaced with a person, whom the voters regard as being more likely to follow the majority preference of the prior internal voting process in the next available voting opportunity in, for instance, the parliament.
-Each voter would be free to select the most appropriate voting methods for him-/herself in the internal voting processes within the closed internet group or the voters’ co-operative. Some voters might, for instance, wish to always either cast their votes personally or abstain from voting altogether, while others might share or rotate the opportunities to exercise their voting rights on behalf of each other either permanently or in specific predefined issues or periods. Voters who do not have an opportunity or the will to exercise their voting rights personally in each and every issue might thus, for instance, form groups which rotate the opportunity to exercise their total number of voting rights among their members permanently or in specific predefined periods or issues or use intermediaries in internal voting processes with similar possibilities for immediate dismissal, prosecution etc. of the intermediaries for, for instance, any potential breaches of contract as in the case of external representatives of the voters’ closed internet group or co-operative. In principle it might also be possible for members of the closed internet group or the voters’ co-operative to trade voting opportunities with each other in their internal voting processes. A voter who might, for instance, be convinced of the importance of a specific policy issue might offer all of his/her voting rights in all other internal voting processes for the entire duration of the representative’s or voters’ co-operative’s term in exchange for being able to cast the maximum number of votes in the issue deemed to be the most important by the voter in question.
-In case the representative is a legal rather than a natural person – for instance, a voters’ co-operative – all salary payments, cost reimbursements, payments to the representative’s political group etc. could be made to the voters’ co-operative, which could use the funds, for instance, for designing and operating its internal voting or other operational processes or distribute the funds partly or entirely to its members.
-Once representatives who support direct democracy have achieved a sufficient majority in the parliament, the entire political system could be transformed into a direct democracy with no representatives, parties, voters’ co-operatives or other institutional intermediaries between the voters exercising their direct voting rights and technical platforms – for instance, the internet or national voting networks that are not connected to the internet – which transparently aggregate and display the results of each vote. Any potential implementation of institutions other than the appropriate type of voting network – and any potential reforms or transformations of such a network – could be determined by the voters.
The petition also asks as optional information whether the person signing the petition is registered to vote in Finland, either in the national or EU parliamentary or the municipal elections.
In case this petition is – during an unspecified time frame – signed by less than 5000 people who are registered to vote in Finland or at least 5000 people who are registered to vote in Finland but implementation of the aforementioned processes may not be feasible at the time of reaching 5000 people who are registered to vote in Finland for, for instance, (“)legal(“) reasons, the drafter of this petition may not necessarily take any further action based on this petition.
In case this petition is – during an unspecified time frame – signed by at least 5000 people who are registered to vote in Finland and no other considerations prevent such an action, the drafter of this petition reserves the right to inquire whether signatories who are registered to vote in Finland would be interested – at the time the limit of 5000 signatories who are registered to vote in Finland is reached or exceeded – in sending a signed document stating their support for the establishment of a new political party in Finland to a postal address which the drafter of this petition may, upon request, provide to them. Such signed statements might be enclosed to a potential application to register a new political party in Finland that might be submitted to the relevant (“)authorities(“) at that time. The drafter of this petition does not, however, make a personal commitment to establish a new political party, particularly in cases where such a process would require centralization of power to the drafter of this petition as an intermediate step on the road toward direct democracy, loss of privacy or the aforementioned objectives may be achieved more appropriately through other means than establishing a new political party. The drafter of this petition also does not recommend supporting anyone or anything that might claim centralization of power to him-/her-/itself to be necessary, desirable or appropriate to promote direct democracy.
Nor is it obvious that a predominantly political – or (“)legal(”), for that matter – solution to some of the aforementioned issues would necessarily be feasible or desirable. Some of the proposed solutions in this petition may well be preconditions for politics rather than outcomes that might be achieved through processes that might legitimately be regarded as predominantly political in nature. If, for instance, the voters do not have sufficient personal privacy, autonomy and bodily integrity for autonomous opinion formation and communication, democracy is not technically feasible irrespective of other characteristics of the (“)political(”) system. It is also not obvious that in the case of intensive and widespread attacks against one’s physical integrity and personhood (“)politics(”) would necessarily always be the primary means of potential self-defense. In such cases enabling direct democracy requires primarily guaranteeing the physical and informational integrity of the human body.
Sign this petition by posting your email address and, optionally, information on whether you are registered to vote in Finland as a comment or sending the information to tero.auvinen (at) yahoo.com, tero.auvinen (at) openmailbox.org and/or teauvi (at) gmail.com.