Just want to see if people think if a platform where everyone, (and yes I do mean everyone, even if at signing up, verifying individual’s identities and providing a safe workable voting system is practically impossible) could be represented as a Global Citizen would be a good thing?

As a democratic platform, all votes would only be on policies that would be umbrella policies that affect all of humanity. So a first ever vote would be ‘Do you want to live in a peaceful world or not’, or ‘Do you want protect the global natural environment’.

I am not asking for opinions of whether it could be achieved, as atm it can’t, but rather would such a system if it could be, be advantageous.

The reason I ask is there is no organisation that has the legitimacy to stop nation states like Russia invading Ukraine, no global body to say no to nations allowing corporation to mine resources, pollute ecosystems and take advantage of poor populations for cheep labour. There is nowhere to go as a global citizen to have a democratic say on such matters. Yes there are pressure groups but even the UN can’t hold nations to account.

Is there a need for a platform for the people, by the people and of the people to control what nations and organisations do in our names that are actually detrimental to us?

lastly yes i am not sure the global population is ready for this, but hope with better education and information being available people will be able to make informed choices well

Edited September 18Sep 18 by BuddhasDragon23

4 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Just want to see if people think if a platform where everyone, (and yes I do mean everyone, even if at signing up, verifying individual’s identities and providing a safe workable voting system is practically impossible) could be represented as a Global Citizen would be a good thing?

As a democratic platform, all votes would only be on policies that would be umbrella policies that affect all of humanity. So a first ever vote would be ‘Do you want to live in a peaceful world or not’, or ‘Do you want protect the global natural environment’.

I am not asking for opinions of whether it could be achieved, as atm it can’t, but rather would such a system if it could be, be advantageous.

The reason I ask is there is no organisation that has the legitimacy to stop nation states like Russia invading Ukraine, no global body to say no to nations allowing corporation to mine resources, pollute ecosystems and take advantage of poor populations for cheep labour. There is nowhere to go as a global citizen to have a democratic say on such matters. Yes there are pressure groups but even the UN can’t hold nations to account.

Is there a need for a platform for the people, by the people and of the people to control what nations and organisations do in our names that are actually detrimental to us?

lastly yes i am not sure the global population is ready for this, but hope with better education and information being available people will be able to make informed choices well

It would in my view be pointless. There is no issue I can think of where the people of the world would be well enough informed to make a good decision.

The essence of representative democracy is to choose governments and legislators that people trust to make those decisions for them, having first informed themselves on the issues in question.

“Do you want to live in a peaceful world or not?” Is a fairly empty question, unless accompanied by a lot of context.

On 9/18/2025 at 5:56 PM, exchemist said:

There is no issue I can think of where the people of the world would be well enough informed to make a good decision.

Vote = should everyone in the world pull their eyes out with red hot tweezers or not.

if you meant real issue, that would be different. I did say with a world of better educated people, or do you think the global populous will always be too ignorant (or other reason) not to make a good decision?

On 9/18/2025 at 5:56 PM, exchemist said:

The essence of representative democracy is to choose governments and legislators that people trust to make those decisions for them, having first informed themselves on the issues in question.

The essence of the post was because there is a desire by some who don’t want governments to make decisions for us because of lack of trust, having informed themselves on the issues in question.

On 9/18/2025 at 5:56 PM, exchemist said:

unless accompanied by a lot of context

Repeating the point on lack of education and knowledge of the subject.

But you think it would be pointless, eso respect that.

3 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Vote = should everyone in the world pull their eyes out with red hot tweezers or not.

if you meant real issue, that would be different. I did say with a world of better educated people, or do you think the global populous will always be too ignorant (or other reason) not to make a good decision?

The essence of the post was because there is a desire by some who don’t want governments to make decisions for us because of lack of trust, having informed themselves on the issues in question.

Repeating the point on lack of education and knowledge of the subject.

But you think it would be pointless, eso respect that.

Well yes, oddly I did mean real issues. And yes I do think the world’s population as a whole will always lack the relevant knowledge on every subject worth deciding, simply because of the specialist or local knowledge required to make an informed decision. This is quite apart from a large proportion of the population not having the necessary mental acuity or interest in the topic.

There are good reasons why democratic governments have a regional mandate rather than a global one and why they are governed by elected representatives, whose primary job is to understand issues and represent the interests of those who elected them. I simply can’t see how referenda involving the entire population of the globe can ever be an appropriate way of governing.

On 9/18/2025 at 6:07 AM, BuddhasDragon23 said:

As a democratic platform, all votes would only be on policies that would be umbrella policies that affect all of humanity

A lot of what happens is in communities at the local level. And a lot of corruption and decay happen when people ignore local politics. Voting globally would, for most, involve voting from their ignorance while neglecting the pressing needs of their towns and cities. Also maybe worth noting that the leaders who we have the most access to are usually at the local level. And the leaders who best understand the needs of a city or state are those at those municipal and state levels of government. And given the gridlock of federal governance in the United States, it is often the local and state officials who actually get things done.

On 9/23/2025 at 3:58 PM, TheVat said:

A lot of what happens is in communities at the local level. And a lot of corruption and decay happen when people ignore local politics. Voting globally would, for most, involve voting from their ignorance while neglecting the pressing needs of their towns and cities. Also maybe worth noting that the leaders who we have the most access to are usually at the local level. And the leaders who best understand the needs of a city or state are those at those municipal and state levels of government. And given the gridlock of federal governance in the United States, it is often the local and state officials who actually get things done.

Thanx, even though that is not part of the question, i agree, voting also would still need to be undertaken at other levels. Maybe on a neighbourhood scale if only economics and policy supported neighbourhood communities. Collective groups of neighbourhoods could then vote at the next level, and so forth from local up to global. This would keep voting relevant to only each tier of society, allowing local needs met by local people but supported by the global community.

On 9/23/2025 at 3:18 PM, exchemist said:

Well yes, oddly I did mean real issues. And yes I do think the world’s population as a whole will always lack the relevant knowledge on every subject worth deciding, simply because of the specialist or local knowledge required to make an informed decision. This is quite apart from a large proportion of the population not having the necessary mental acuity or interest in the topic.

There are good reasons why democratic governments have a regional mandate rather than a global one and why they are governed by elected representatives, whose primary job is to understand issues and represent the interests of those who elected them. I simply can’t see how referenda involving the entire population of the globe can ever be an appropriate way of governing.

Fair enough. I disagree that this is the case. I do see a future where humanity will be educated enough and interested enough to make well informed decisions on those areas that have global implications. Guess this future will not just be global.

Ps, i am involved in some areas of politics and I know for fact we vote for people who often are clueless about the policy, clueless about the science and get voted only because they are affiliated with the right party. Your trust in this system based on what you say is naive. Lastly governing is an economic model relying on an argument based on a medieval way of managing a field. Collective management breaks down because of selfish reasons vs ownership or governance of said field is more stable. So who gets to rule Earth, as nations are the selfish people and the Earth is the field. Who is in charge?

30 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Fair enough. I disagree that this is the case. I do see a future where humanity will be educated enough and interested enough to make well informed decisions on those areas that have global implications. Guess this future will not just be global.

Ps, i am involved in some areas of politics and I know for fact we vote for people who often are clueless about the policy, clueless about the science and get voted only because they are affiliated with the right party. Your trust in this system based on what you say is naive. Lastly governing is an economic model relying on an argument based on a medieval way of managing a field. Collective management breaks down because of selfish reasons vs ownership or governance of said field is more stable. So who gets to rule Earth, as nations are the selfish people and the Earth is the field. Who is in charge?

I don’t “trust” it particularly, but your idea strikes me as far worse, even apart from its utter impracticality.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

I don’t “trust” it particularly, but your idea strikes me as far worse, even apart from its utter impracticality.

I will agree with currently impractical, but you haven’t demonstrated the understanding of the idea, for you to say if ‘my’ idea is far worse or not.

1 minute ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

I will agree with currently impractical, but you haven’t demonstrated the understanding of the idea, for you to say if ‘my’ idea is far worse or not.

I've understood your idea and given you my reasons for thinking it a bad one. So that seems to be that, as far as I'm concerned.

25 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

but you haven’t demonstrated the understanding of the idea, for you to say if ‘my’ idea is far worse or not.

You don't seem to understand how governments, or democracy ( never mind other forms of more totalitarian governance ) works.

This 'pie in the sky' scenario reminds me of those 'groups against nuclear weapons'.
If one side is willing to disarm, in the hope the other side will also, they don't understand deterrence.

Edited September 25Sep 25 by MigL

Also, don't many people already vote on global issues when they vote for presidents and national assembly representatives who must deal with issues of a global nature? Say I'm voting for a leader who promises to work with other countries on carbon neutral initiatives, or who favors economic sanctions rather than land wars against rogue nations. I try to vote for people with the best understanding of such issues and vote against them if they don't act on their understanding.

22 hours ago, MigL said:

they don't understand deterrence.

I understand deterrence perfectly. It works fine so long as both sides are afraid of the results but what happens when one side loses that fear and embraces mass destruction in the cause of "bringing on the rapture" or some similar delusion?