Can Cheaters Rig Constitutional Direct Democracy?

Another criticism

Usually when people accept the premises of other points of Constitutional Direct Democracy, they invariably ask the question that plagues Representative Democracies, which is that of vote rigging, election fraud and the like.

Naturally, they insist a mysterious “they” (which for purposes of argument we take to mean either ‘Deep State’ or ‘globalists’) will rig the vote, without ever asking what the security measures, precautions or issues are relating to Constitutional Direct Democracy.

No, “They” Won’t

You want to know why? It is logistically impossible. Not logically: logistically.

Constitutional Direct Democracy means there will be millions of people proposing bills and voting on those bills daily. The sheer number of possible bills to rig or not-rig would be vastly overwhelming to an adversarial opponent.

It Is Too Costly To Do In Constitutional Direct Democracy

Election rigging is only possible and only occurs when two key conditions are met:

• The benefits outweigh the risks (read: the rewards outweigh the costs)

• The amount of resources you get back are more than what you spend rigging it

These might sound like the ‘same’ condition, but they aren’t.

The first one relates to what they get out of rigging the system, whether that is money, a nice job, vacation time, drugs, prostitutes etc, and the risks in relation to being jailed, getting killed by an angry public, getting exiled, etc.

The second one relates to the cost of the rigging itself, for example, how many voting mules they need to hire, how much the voting ballots cost, how many bribes they need to pay, etc. It has to be cost effective or what’s the point if you spend more money than you get back? Vote rigging is only possible in representative democracies because the votes are extremely infrequent.

“Representative” Democracy Is Not Direct Democracy

In Representative Democracies, they only have to try to rig the President once every 4 years, and the mid-terms once every 4 years. That gives them breathing room, time to raise funds, time to lay out plans so they don’t get caught, time to make supplies and resources.

And they have to make all that expenditure back. Their party has to gain power to get the money back. They have to rig the system and then their party specifically has to gain access to the funds. This is only a feature of a ‘representative’ democracy. In Direct Democracy, there are no parties. There is no way to ‘campaign to raise funds’ or ‘pass a bill that gives your party’s State more money’.

Imagine if there was a vote you had to rig every day. The sheer amount of finances, resources, manpower, operations you’d have to expend would be absurd. You’d run the risk of being exposed daily, and this is on top of the public voting to upgrade and improve and change the system. New laws being passed daily you have to avoid running foul of.

For a vote rigger this system is a nightmare. There are too many ongoing, concurrent votes to rig. And any attempt to consolidate power, centralise the voting, narrow scope, seize control would be painfully obvious - and the public is empowered to stop them (by force, if necessary).

Local CDD groups would pass their own local bills which would form pockets of resistance against a central authority. Essentially, in order to control the vote you’d need to be basically the majority of the public, the manpower required to control a system that localised would be insane.

Let Us Handwave: Assume The Worst

Let us assume that, somehow, the vote riggers have a perfect system of vote rigging. We don’t know how they do it (somehow they abolished the transparency requirement of voting of CDD), we know they do it.

The vote riggers now have to maintain a facade that the system still works. It will still have to accept bills, still let people somehow vote on it but without winning, somehow ID which bills they want and don’t want. YouTube can’t even alter the dislike counts without being noticed.

Vote rigging, however, is not enforcement. Faking the votes isn’t sufficient to control Constitutional Direct Democracy, because for it to work, you need compliance with the bills. And the people’s own physical actions are the final bulwark against voting abuse.

Consider how CDD would work normally, let us say, 1 million people voted to go to war with a smaller 800,000 people. That is 1 million people who intend, in action, to go to war. The vote aligns with the action.

Now, let us assume that a vote rigger set up a bill saying 1 million people want to go to war with 800,000 other people, but in truth the 1 million votes are fake. What do you think will happen when they call to arms? Hardly anyone will turn up. There will be no action. There is no real army, because the vote-action intention is not real.

That means, in CDD, people can freely disobey a bill, because ultimately the public are the enforcers (they are the government now; so they can choose to enforce or not enforce their own bills).

This gives a fatal blow to vote rigging, because CDD is a signal of genuine intent to action. It isn’t the vote that legitimises it; it’s the people acting on the vote that does. If a minority of criminals disobey the law, they will be quickly detained by the majority law abiding public.

If a majority disobey the law, then their new position of opposing the bill is de facto the law (their actions are, in and of themselves, a type of vote). CDD does not empower a minority government with the “right” to oppress a majority to ‘secure the vote’; it empowers the civilians with the right to refuse and the right to act.

This includes the right to refuse bills passed illegally, and the right to act to detain those rigging the system. Vote rigging is only possible with a minority-style government, such as a ‘Representative Democracy’ or a dictatorship. CDD isn’t a minority-style government.

If you like my work, be sure to support it by sharing the article link with other people, subscribing or even becoming a supporter. Thank you!