Let us consider the problem of transition towards 
DD in a structured form.

===============================================
1.REVOLUTION.

1.1.FOR.
--------
Eventual arguments for Revolution could be 
inserted here as paragraphs 1.1.1, 1.1.2, etc. 
I personally do not see any.

1.2.AGAINST.
------------

1.2.1.COST.
-----------
Recent Revolutions exterminated hundreds of millions
and ruined continents. A future Revolution may likely
exterminate billions and ruin the planet.

1.2.2.DEVIATION FROM OBJECTIVES.
--------------------------------
None of known Revolutions achieved its declared
objectives and most achieved their contrary.

===============================================
2.EVOLUTION.
------------
As conclusion of 1. Evolution is the desired 
way. In very broad strokes it may take one of 
two forms:
-Legislation determines action,
-Action determines legislation.

2.1.LEGISLATION DETERMINES ACTION.
----------------------------------
This means to postpone all practical DD 
procedures until respective legislation is in 
place. The only possible action seems to consist 
in petitions imploring such legislation. 
However, Particracy will just throw such 
implorations into the dust bin, as they would 
on the one hand imply restriction of its power 
and, on the other hand, carry no weight. 
The only exception may be implementation of some
form of I&R (Initiative and Referendum). Indeed, 
in crisis situations requiring extremely unpopular 
measures Particracy may find it comfortable to 
wash its hands and to discharge the politically 
disastrous responsibility on the shoulders of 
manipulated and conditioned people.
Manipulated and conditioned, because I&R is by
definition a snapshot and snapshots may easily
be conditioned by media and demagogy. DD starts
with a continuous "3F" Forum having all 3 functions
namely Initiative, Debate and Decision, with
Debate determining current consensus and 
Decision occurring when consensus reaches a
value predetermined by Forum's rules.
Snapshot I&R usually confused with DD would be 
in reality the most dangerous dodging maneuver
of Particracy against the true DD.

2.2.ACTION DETERMINES LEGISLATION.
----------------------------------
As consequence of all above it seems the only 
way left. Which form may it take? I can see only 
one, the 2.2.1.Shadow Parliament presented below.

2.2.1.SHADOW PARLIAMENT.
------------------------
Let us suppose, that we are a group satisfying
conditions of 2.2.1.1. below and having achieved
consensus with respect to some decision.
We will then be in position of putting enough
pressure on Particracy to make it fall in with our
request without humiliating and inefficient
implorations.
Seems fine at the first glance, but after a short
look at 2.2.1.1. Conditions we shall realize that 
it is far from plain sailing.

2.2.1.1.CONDITIONS.
-------------------

2.2.1.1.1.SIZE.
---------------
In order to be able to put any pressure, the 
Group must count enough members. 1% of the voting
population seems to be a minimum, but of course 
it is just a guess. Only practice will tell.

2.2.1.1.2.LOGISTIC.
-------------------
Consensus of a Group of that size may only be
achieved with help of an adequate "3F" E-Platform. 
Short experience with my CN shows that while 
such Platform is feasible, adequate and efficient, 
its refining and, above all, the apprenticeship 
of its use will require at least a generation. 
The main difficulty seems to reside not so much 
in Platform's complexity, but in mental rigidity 
engendered by our educational system making 
people unable to understand, let alone to apply 
concepts sorting of beaten paths.
Indeed, only very young and uneducated, or rather
self educated people were able to make worth while
contributions to CN.

2.2.1.1.3.SINCERITY.
--------------------
It is the critical condition: members must be
capable to conceive and accept local, i.e. 
personal sacrifices involved by the global 
improvement. This short phrase implies a 
fundamental change of mentality, replacement of 
present egoism with something similar to the 
attitude of Israeli Kibbutzim. 
BTW I should think that each sincere protagonist
of DD should start by a stage in a Kibbutz, as
it's the only truly DD social group in the 
history. (The celebrated Athenian Democracy was
in reality an Oligarchy eliminating from power
the majority: metecs and slaves.)
If Logistics requires at least a generation, 
Sincerity will come still later, if ever,
It's necessary condition is the New Manner of
Thinking discussed below.

2.2.1.1.4.NEW MANNER OF THINKING.
---------------------------------
In the site dedicated by G. Evans to my writings:

 EVANS ACADEMY 

I report that working in a branch of Einstein's 
team I read in a letter he addressed to us:

"A new manner of thinking is essential if humankind is to survive."

I am sure that in our systems of Particratic 
Oligarchies it's impossible to even formulate, 
let alone to solve the problems involved by DD 
in terms of the old, obsolete, dogmatic reason.

That's why I dedicated over 40 years to developing 
this New Manner of Thinking (NMT) under the name 
of Relativistic Dialectics (RD).

It is still in development. EVANS ACADEMY contains
the first scratch pad version in a rather loosely
structured form. The development version is in the
temporary site 
 DEVEL  
It contains detailed foundation of RD in 
Phenomenological Ontology. Once stabilized, it is
destined to be uploaded to the EVANS ACADEMY.
In the meantime comments and contributions to the
development are most warmly invited and welcome.