In Serbia, students transferred the methods of direct democracy to electoral politics. Instead of a top-down hierarchical organization dependent on a leader, they created general assemblies of students (plenaries) where everyone could speak. The decisions were made through discussions, where possible by consensus. They extended this practice beyond universities. Civic assemblies (choirs) arose in the provinces, cities and villages. People gathered to discuss their problems, propose solutions and accept them together. They created a list of 250 candidates for parliament as follows: 1. Distribution of places between universities. First, 250 places on the list were divided between six university cities in relation to the number of students. To prevent Belgrade from dominating the list, they made sure other cities were represented at the top of the list. Then the quotas of each city were distributed among the faculties. 2. Nomination of candidates in student assemblies. Student assemblies were held in over 80 faculties across the country. The students themselves did not present their candidacy, but anyone could propose a candidate and explain why they consider him worthy. The proposed candidates were discussed. First, the participants tried to reach a consensus and, if necessary, voted. 3. Rejecting the representatives of the existing political establishment. The students blocked the way for the current political cadres. They did not present current and former members of the ruling parties, politicians and officials who worked for the current government, as well as senior leaders of the opposition parties. This is how they managed to compile a list independent of both the authorities and the traditional opposition. 4. Mutual control of candidates between the faculties. The faculties also examined candidates proposed by it. All the names were consolidated into a common list, which is available for examination in each faculty.

In Serbia, students transferred the methods of direct democracy to electoral politics. Instead of a top-down hierarchical organization dependent on a leader, they created general assemblies of students (plenaries) where everyone could speak. The decisions were made through discussions, where possible by consensus. They extended this practice beyond universities. Civic assemblies (choirs) arose in the provinces, cities and villages. People gathered to discuss their problems, propose solutions and accept them together. They created a list of 250 candidates for parliament as follows: 1. Distribution of places between universities. First, 250 places on the list were divided between six university cities in relation to the number of students. To prevent Belgrade from dominating the list, they made sure other cities were represented at the top of the list. Then the quotas of each city were distributed among the faculties. 2. Nomination of candidates in student assemblies. Student assemblies were held in over 80 faculties across the country. The students themselves did not present their candidacy, but anyone could propose a candidate and explain why they consider him worthy. The proposed candidates were discussed. First, the participants tried to reach a consensus and, if necessary, voted. 3. Rejecting the representatives of the existing political establishment. The students blocked the way for the current political cadres. They did not present current and former members of the ruling parties, politicians and officials who worked for the current government, as well as senior leaders of the opposition parties. This is how they managed to compile a list independent of both the authorities and the traditional opposition. 4. Mutual control of candidates between the faculties. The faculties also examined candidates proposed by it. All the names were consolidated into a common list, which is available for examination in each faculty.