Make your own free website on

Electronic Democracy

Vote or electronic debate ?

Vote or electronic debate ?
Job available
Internet revolution
Search for the true democrate who wants to act in the first electronic assembly

Voting is an easy but potentially dangerous way to take a collective decision. Adolph Hitler and Mussolini acceded to power through a legitimate electoral process. We currently have a democratically elected leader with a strange pro nuclear project on the head of the republic of Iran.

Our decisions are made through a mental process, which is dependent of our knowledges and our values. Different individuals lead to different mental process and so to different decision.

In order to take collective decisions, we have to be able to converge our opinions. The easiest but the most artificial are to converge is "voting". We just take the opinion of the majority.


The problem of "voting" is that there is no insensitive for individual to improve the quality of their mental process by learning more. On the opposite, there is a high insensitive from media professionals to corrupt the mental process of individuals by developping misinformation strategy  and by spreading demagogy. Misinformation corrupts moral values of the nation and in turn, vote are of very poor quality, which in turn help to put on the top of the political “nomenclatura” professional demagogue which are highly skills in the art to use cultural corruption to their advantages.



In small communities (usually below 150 individuals), politics might organize around an alternative way. It consists to write down the mental process, which bring you to the decision and then make it converge. It is relatively easy process for individuals, which accepts logic, experimentation as a mean to differentiate true and false, and who knows the current law, which affects the decision process.


The convergence is based on a debate, which usually criticizes the use of ambiguous concepts, which affect the decision process. There are at least three causes for disagreement:

- Concept or word ambiguity and misunderstanding,

- Ignorance of experimental results,

- Divergence of values.


The first cause of disagreement came from the use of ambiguous "word" which can mean different things and might be acceptable in one context but not acceptable in the current context.


For example, the French government uses an highly controversial concept to justify its policy of extremely high taxation: "national solidarity". The term has an extremely clear and positive meaning in people who lives in community, where every body teaches and helps each other but can it mean the same thing in a 60 millions country where people does not know what do others think and have very different moral rules. Some believe that they should learn a practical job to serve the society better and others believe that it is their own right to study what they like in order to do the job they like or nothing if this job does not exist. This second behaviors will not be possible in a tribal community as it would lead to a rejection from the community. And so, it is rather normal that "practical" people see this "national solidarity" has a misinformation strategy to hide "legalize robbery".


The second reason can be solved by proceeding by experimentation. It is however to the poeple to accept the result of the experimentation and so they will need to vote so as to use their right of recurse in case of negative experimental results. A political debate might be necessary to define the criteria of a valid experimentation.


The third is a disagreement of values came from a difference a belief or personality and so (of genes). It is the only case when voting is the only alternative.


I will so use the denomination of collective convergence by debate and oppose it to collective convergence by voting for the current process.


Now, do you believe that decision process which is followed by the political “nomenclatura” is by voting or by debate and convergence? What voting can really do? Other and agree or not on already debate decision.



The current platform has the purpose to make the political debate equally accessible to everybody so as to make collective convergence by electronic debate the future of politics.