Voting for Direct Democracy
We would like for people to vote for themselves and, to not vote for any candidate from any party. Voting for the People's Administration to bring a reform to direct democracy is currently the only way that the electorate can attain direct democracy within the law and without revolution.
VOTING FOR DIRECT DEMOCRACY OUTSIDE A GENERAL ELECTION:
However it is expressed, if the majority call for reform to direct democracy [even outside a general election and outside of current protocols], this expression would become law and we would have direct democracy - in accordance with all legally accepted UK democratic principals, as well as with UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 21 which the UK is signed-up to.
Only a Western reform to direct democracy now, will save the economy, the environment, and the world and, it is only Western media agencies that are preventing you from knowing that you can make it happen legitimately, immediately, with majority election and without revolution.
It is up to us, the people [not the politicians] to use the power that we have always had, to choose to implement direct democracy as soon as possible.
This is not a protest campaign.
Following the People's Administration Direct Democracy Party [a mainstream registered party since March 2010] on Twitter, gives us your permission [when a majority] to invoke existing laws under UN Articles 21 and 61 [which the UK is signed-up to], so as to take immediate control of all policy decision-making by forming a legitimate UN-sanctioned direct democracy with majority election and without revolution, in the UK.
The People's Administration's constitution for reform to direct democracy and our voting protocols have both been accepted by the UK Electoral Commission and the UN as legitimate. In a general election, the People's Administration does not have to field candidates to secure your vote on the ballot paper. Outside a general election, you can vote for a legitimate reform to direct democracy now!
Regardless of current voting protocols, if the majority expressed a clear and consolidated desire for a reform to direct democracy at any point in time and by any means, then this would become law - as with the Arabian uprisings that our own government supported [but which unfortunately aspired only to representative democracy]. Our recommended method for voting for the People's Administration and direct democracy in a general election is merely a bonus option to enable a reform to direct democracy within current protocols.
Self-rule is an inevitability simply because it is within the nature of all humans to make our own choices and we do this in every moment of our lives - regardless of how 'controlled' we may complain about being. We all always have a minimum of two choices up until the point of death and so it is only an illusion that we are not all already free.
VOTING FOR DIRECT DEMOCRACY IN A GENERAL ELECTION:
The People's Administration retains the ability to field candidates but we refrain as doing so would place the People's Administration in direct conflict with its own EC-accepted constitution to reform to direct democracy, as these candidates would serve no purpose within the current parliamentary process.
Any People's Administration candidates elected into the current parliamentary process after a general election would not be able to carry their voters majority-voted policies into law without the vote of the entire house - which may not even table any policies through for a vote in the first place. Any PA direct democracy policies that were implemented into law would only reflect the desires of that PA candidate's ward and of Parliament - not the majority of the UK electorate. If you duplicate this theory to include all members of Parliament, you end up with approx. 700 separate voter websites [or 700 security risks], all forwarding proposals that would still need to be voted on by a centralised minority system. This would therefore not be direct democracy because direct democracy must include a reform to Parliament and a complete hand-over of the decision-making process.
As the People's Administration is proposing a reform from partisan politics to people politics, it is not required by the Electoral Commission that we field candidates in order to form a government that complies with our parliamentary reforms. It is though required that ballot papers legally reflect a majority vote for the People's Administration in the next UK general election.
Legal Void Ballot Paper Voting:
• The current ballot paper only accommodates a vote within a representative partisan structure, leaving no option for the electorate to vote for direct democracy or any other alternative structures - including a hung parliament.
• As any changes to the ballot paper can only be recommended by a sitting government and approved and implemented by Parliament - it is obvious that no sitting partisan government would ever recommend reforms to the ballot paper that would enable for direct democracy and the defeat of that government itself, along with the partisan structure that supports it.
Without changes to the ballot paper and without a candidate box to mark in favour of the People's Administration and direct democracy, the best way to register a clear, discernable and certain vote for the People's Administration on the ballot paper will be to place the letters 'PA' to the left in the ballot paper header [runs across the top].
Doing this is in accordance with Electoral Commission rules and it will be counted and published by the Ministry of Justice but, initially as a void ballot paper.
People's Administration's Legal Argument:
Our legal argument that PA-void ballot papers representing a vote for direct democracy should not be rejected is based upon 15 key currently-accepted EC and EPE points of ballot paper legislation:
1. According to EPE regulations, if the words 'Lib Dems' [for example] were written in the header instead of a cross being placed next to the local Liberal Democrat candidate's name, this ballot paper will be marked void and then later upon assessment, counted as a vote for that ward's Liberal Democrat candidate. On the same basis, unless a void ballot paper marked 'PA' in the same place is also counted upon assessment as a vote for the People's Administration, then this would amount to blatant discrimination as both parties have constitutions accepted and registered with the UK Electoral Commission.
2. According to EPE regulations, all ballot paper legislation is applicable to either a vote for a candidate or a vote for a party.
3. There is no EC or EPE ruling that states [even in vague terms] that a vote can only represent a candidate or party listed on the ballot paper itself.
4. In UK law, it is not currently stated whether it would be acceptable or not acceptable for one party to ignore a majority of void ballot papers that stand for another registered party, and to then attempt to form a government against the wishes of the majority electorate. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 21, this would not be legally acceptable and that the only legally acceptable outcome would be the implementation of direct democracy via the People's Administration.
In principal, any party that did attempt to form a government by ignoring clear, discernable and certain majority opinion expressed in a general election, would by default then become a dictatorship and, forming a dictatorship would be in violation of UK, European and International democratic election laws, as a dictatorship ignores the specifically stated clear, discernable and certain wishes of the majority electorate.
5. According to EPE regulations, ballot papers are not made void simply due to them not being marked in strict accordance with ballot paper guidance, not being marked in the right place, or not being marked with a cross.
6. In our opinion, the ballot paper is discriminatory because it only allows for nominations within a partisan structure and representative democracy, leaving no other facility to cater for a vote for direct democracy or any other alternative structures - including a hung parliament, and is therefore undemocratic.
Forming a coalition was not an option on the ballot paper in 2010 - there was no space for 'Hung Parliament', 'Coalition' or 'Con Dems' with which to mark. The parties decided among themselves who would rule and form the next government with no amendments made to ballot paper legislation. Even if this would have been done, it would have been done after the fact.
If EC and EPE legislation can allow for the formation of a non-democratic coalition through a hung parliament, why not allow for a majority of void ballot papers that express a clear and democratic vote for the People's Administration and reform to direct democracy?
7. In our opinion, ballot papers made void by placing the letters 'PA' in the header will be a clear, discernable and certain vote for the People's Administration [a registered party] and therefore, not void because they will represent the clear, discernable and certain intention of the voter to elect a particular registered party.
8. In our opinion, the legal principals of democracy should take precedence over out-dated procedure and beaurocracy because, if current parliamentary procedure is deemed more important than majority opinion of parliamentary procedure, then the majority are being ignored in favour of the minority and this is undemocratic. As the Ministry of Justice often quotes that the strengthening of democracy is its justification for implementing new legislation, then it would surely have to amend electoral legislation to include a vote for the People's Administration and reform to direct democracy on the same basis.
9. According to EPE regulations, void ballot papers must be categorised into one of five groups:
a] Want of official mark
b] Voting for more than one candidate
c] Writing or mark by which the voter could be identified
d] Being wholly unmarked or void for uncertainty
e] Rejected in part
This confirms that void ballot papers are actually analysed to ascertain as to why they are void and, this means that any ballot papers marked as a vote for the People's Administration and direct democracy will be noticed [if the mark is clear, discernable and certain]. Therefore in our opinion, as the People's Administration is a registered party, ballot papers made void because of the mark for the People's Administration should actually be accepted as a vote for the People's Administration [a registered party] and reform to direct democracy.
10. According to the EC, void ballot papers accounted for 0.38% of the total vote in the UK General Election 2001. Other UK General Elections yield similar results so, if there is a substantial increase in void ballot papers in the next UK general election, this would point towards the electorate intentionally voiding their ballot papers. In our opinion, if this actually happens then the reason for this should be considered in accordance with the principals of a democratic election process.
11. The People's Administration is the only registered party who's manifesto and reforms could not involve fielding candidates in any general election as doing so would place the People's Administration in direct conflict with its own constitution for reform to direct democracy. All other parties are fielding candidates as they do not seek to reform partisan politics or to implement direct democracy and so in our opinion, not having a specific box on the ballot paper for a People's Administration candidate should not enable for discrimination against a vote for the People's Administration as a party, if expressed in a way that can be assessed as being clear, discernable and certain.
According to EPE regulations, all ballot paper legislation is applicable to either a vote for a candidate or a vote for a party.
12. Parliament did not give the people what they specifically cast their votes for on the ballot paper in the UK General Election 2010. There was no box or candidate to mark for either a hung parliament or a coalition between any parties, and so the parties themselves decided upon the format of our government.
We argue that this was highly undemocratic as the electorate was not involved or even consulted and, because the ballot papers were translated to express a notion that wasn't even available to vote for. In our opinion, a void ballot paper that shows a clear intentional vote for the People's Administration is more in alignment with the ideals of any form of democracy and as such, a void ballot paper that supports the People's Administration should be accepted.
In forming the Con Dem coalition, Parliament has ignored the democratic vote cast on every single ballot paper.
13. An example of how similar void ballot papers have previously been allowed by EC and European Election legislation: Allow for Singh  QB 1220; and Rule 55
In the event that the People's Administration wins the next UK general election with a majority of void ballot paper votes and Parliament refuses to recognise the choice of the majority to reform partisan politics and representative democracy to people politics and direct democracy through the People's Administration, we propose that the majority stand by their vote by partaking in legal PA co-ordinated Internet-based campaigns and off-line static peaceful protests, whilst we pursue our legal argument on behalf of the majority who would have voted for direct democracy.
14. Ballot paper design, layout and presentation can currently only be decided upon by the Ministry of Justice which is controlled by the sitting government. As the sitting government represents only one registered party, the People's Administration argues that decisions regarding ballot paper design, layout and presentation can be divisive and, that the only way to remove this corruption is to have ballot paper design, layout and presentation decided by the Electoral Commission.
15. The EC and EPE accepted Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states in Article 21, that:
1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Additional legal measures that can be taken in the event of non-recognition post-general election:
1. 'Burning' [over-requesting] parliamentary websites causing them to crash without hacking.
2. Requesting that all Whitehall ministries recognise the legitimacy of the democratically-elected People's Administration over any self-imposed government.
3. Requesting that the United Nations and all foreign governments recognise the legitimacy of the democratically-elected People's Administration over any self-imposed government.
4. Co-ordinated peaceful protest.
According to UN Article 21, the UN would be legally obliged to recognise the People's Administration as the incoming UK administration and as such, any failure to comply with this by any member or party of the UK Parliament or by Whitehall staff would in itself be a crime against international law.
There would be no legal defence for a self-imposed minority government fighting against the majority electorate that would have demanded self-rule and the installation of direct democracy during a legitimate election process.
We are all born with free will - the ability to make choices [freedom]. If during our lives we choose to limit its use, then it is us who restricts our own power and freedom. Up until the point of death, no one can compromise our freedom without us in some way choosing to let them do so.
We can choose right now to exercise the power and freedom that we already have, by voting for the People's Administration and direct democracy based upon majority self-rule or, we can continue to choose to be controlled by the minority and to suffer the consequences of not taking responsibility.
Choosing not to vote for a direct democracy when we now have the opportunity, is to choose to never again complain about any aspect of any government, as they are only able to govern our lives because we empower them to do so.