A few days after the results of the referendum on justice reform in Italy were released, our national organization would like to share some opinions and respond to some messages we've received from outside our system.
Italians chose "no," as did about half of our Italian users in our voting tests. In a previous article, we informed you of our official positions, determined by the internal vote of nearly all our users. We advised you to vote "yes," not because we liked the reform; in fact, as we explained extensively, we consider it completely flawed, and we certainly would have written and conceived it better. The reasoning for voting "yes" is explained in the respective article, and a post on our Italian-language blog, at these links:
https://free.directdemocracys.org///www.free.directdemocracys.org/utility/blog/2026-referendum-in-italy-on-justice-reform and this detailed explanation:
It was because it represented two steps forward (with the separation of careers, solving some problems), and a step backward (with the drawing of lots, and the possible political subservience of the judiciary). Voting no means leaving things as they are, and is like admitting that the justice system works well in Italy.
Our recommendation to vote yes was motivated by the fact that the majority of our Italian users, although disappointed by the content of the reform, had hoped for better subsequent implementing rules, perhaps ones that would integrate the terrible reform.
But what would we have changed or added to the respective reform?
We would have completely rewritten it, keeping only the separation of careers, and little else, but introducing the direct election of judges and public prosecutors by citizens, to ensure consistency in all sentences issued in the name of the Italian people. DirectDemocracyS always wants to put citizens at the center of every activity; therefore, the election of judges and public prosecutors is an absolute priority for us. Castes and factions do not benefit the results of justice. We would have added civil and criminal liability for judges, public prosecutors, police forces, and all those conducting investigations, and for everyone involved. The reasons are obvious: if a citizen runs a red light, he pays a fine and has his license suspended, or, if he is a repeat offender, his driving license revoked. If he does the same thing and injures or kills someone, he is criminally liable, therefore he can be charged, investigated, and if found guilty, sentenced to prison. If a judge, or a public prosecutor, or whoever handles complaints, investigations, indictments, trials, and sentences makes a mistake, and an innocent person, who has done nothing wrong, is investigated, charged, tried, and convicted—through miscarriages of justice, including those due to faulty investigations or unfounded complaints—the one who pays compensation isn't the one who makes the mistake (as with any ordinary citizen). Instead, appeals are used to obtain possible reimbursements, with public funds . Therefore, we all pay for the mistakes of a few. The gist of what we're asking for is: either we abolish all types of convictions for citizens and make them pay all their fines with public funds, or we decide to do justice and hold everyone equally accountable. Finally, as the icing on the cake, we want the citizens to elect a new oversight body, staffed by highly specialized and incorruptible individuals who represent all citizens. They will have full powers to oversee all judicial activity. These powers will be supplemented, but with greater powers, by the various inspectors at the Ministry of Justice, who are often powerless and, above all, politicized. Therefore, they certainly do not serve the interests of the population, but only of politicians, and obviously, of the government.
With these concrete proposals of ours, obviously with very detailed implementing rules, and complete citizen management and control over all justice activities, we could truly change and improve many things, for the common good.
Only we could introduce such reforms, because all of this would be revolutionary, pioneering, but also very useful for the entire population.
Having no debt to anyone, no fear of retaliation, no alliances or coalitions to please, but only a responsibility to the citizens, for all the consequences of what we decide in our system, for the common good, we are the only ones who can make such reforms.
Let's answer some questions, briefly.
DirectDemocracyS urged Italian voters to vote yes, and they voted no. Have we witnessed DirectDemocracyS's first electoral defeat?
We explained the reasons why we recommended choosing "yes," while also explaining the reasons for choosing "no." For DirectDemocracyS, this isn't a defeat, because the decision wasn't made by the entire system, but only by our Italian users. DirectDemocracyS Italy didn't lose either, and neither did our users, for the simple fact that we reason and decide on merit, and we don't engage in foolish and pointless political battles, and we aren't manipulated by old ideologies, like many outside our system. We don't support anyone's political views. Many voters, rightly and freely dissatisfied with the Meloni government (and they have many reasons to be), used the referendum to oppose the government, forgetting, however, that reforms are useful to everyone, even if incomplete, poorly written, and partial. This is one of the reasons why those who join us are freed from ideological fanbases and don't have to submit to the appeals of opposition political leaders, who seek consensus and reasons to brag to those who trust them. All this is legitimate, all this is democratic, but also very superficial and counterproductive. We respect the decisions of the people, who voted with conviction for a "no" vote, but we don't respect the losers who voted to cause displeasure or some problem for the Meloni government. We call them losers, because we don't need people who make decisions based on fan bases or sympathies, but only those who think with their own minds, and not with those of the majority or the minority.
Can DirectDemocracyS guarantee that its reforms will change Italy and the entire world?
At DirectDemocracyS, certain words must necessarily be spoken together. Making reforms for change, as almost all political forces do, certainly appeals to some reformists, but what we do is different. Our reforms serve to change and improve the lives of all people, without any kind of preference. Reform without improvement is of no use to anyone. Our reforms follow a precise and protected internal process, with very detailed implementation rules, individual and collective proposals, involving numerous experts, numerous groups, and joint decisions. Therefore, the work behind each of our proposals guarantees excellent results. To understand this, just join us and work concretely, directly, without delegating our decisions to others. Obviously, all our proposals will then be evaluated by the citizens, who, if they are satisfied, will renew their trust in us in the elections; otherwise, they will vote for others. We are not afraid of comparing ideas, and for us, the people are always right, whether they choose us or others.
Let's add an important detail. Justice reform is very important to us, and according to our fundamental voting rules, a simple majority of 50% + 1 vote of those who vote in our internal elections is not enough. First, in our votes for very important issues, the quorum can vary (decided by the group based on the importance of the decisions and votes, and any of our official members who request it and meet all the requirements can participate). Typically, for such important issues, the minimum quorum is at least 66%, but can reach 75%, or even 85% to 95%. To change our fundamental decisions, unanimity is required (to avoid distorting our ideas and losing our identity). It should also be remembered that for the first three votes, quorums are based on the total number of those entitled to vote, and only from the fourth vote onward are quorums (including a simple majority) calculated based on the number of voters.
Under these rules, to recommend a vote ON ONE OF OUR REFORMS, at least a quorum is required, determined by our groups, based on the importance of the topic and the reform.
The referendum was about someone else's reform, and our voting recommendation is based on the majority of votes cast, in our simulations, on the referendum question, and not on political likes or dislikes towards those who promoted it.