BitGov

[kungfoo]

For a long time I have been thinking about how we can move to a system where people do not require representation by a third party in order to partake in their own governance.  I had this wild idea, based upon what I have learnt of crypto-currencies and I wanted to put it to people who might understand what I am saying (you peeps).

Consider a blockchain where each private key can vote once on each poll transaction.

The main problem with techo-democracy (as I like to call it) is verification of voting rights.  Could a system be developed whereby people are identified by a public key which is produced by audio/video recording? 

If so, each person could record their vote (I understand the need for disabled access to the system but have not yet considered it fully) and it would be accepted as a transaction in the peer to peer system and they could be identified by biometric production of their private key, and random people on the p2p network could confirm that transaction is a real person.

So a poll creator would provide a list of poll answers and the voter would read their chosen answer to their webcam and thus enter their vote into the system.

I realise this is all based on a cursory understanding of blockchain crypto and a wild imaginative leap, so be gentle

[Lethn]

Sounds extremely and unnecessarily complicated, I do think there's nothing wrong with the main voting systems, the biggest thing wrong with them is that once a politician is elected citizens have no rights and can't take any steps to get rid of the leaders or block their laws until the next election. A classic example is here in the UK there's lots of talk about a referendum on the EU and the Scottish independence referendum, the politicians are actually wanting to ask peoples opinions on it and the people in power are doing absolutely everything to slow it down because they know how people will vote.

The last time we had a referendum was on the awful AV system which I actually voted no on.

[myrkul]

Sounds extremely and unnecessarily complicated, I do think there's nothing wrong with the main voting systems, the biggest thing wrong with them is that once a politician is elected citizens have no rights and can't take any steps to get rid of the leaders or block their laws until the next election.

It seems that a lot of people who come here think, "Wow, this Bitcoin is awesome! We could use it to vote!" (I remember at least two other threads similar to this.)

And that's fine, but I'd just like to point out that there is already a system which allows people to vote with their money. It's called capitalism. The concept of expanding voting with one's money into government services is called "Anarcho-capitalism".

[kungfoo]

Sounds extremely and unnecessarily complicated, I do think there's nothing wrong with the main voting systems, the biggest thing wrong with them is that once a politician is elected citizens have no rights and can't take any steps to get rid of the leaders or block their laws until the next election.

It seems that a lot of people who come here think, "Wow, this Bitcoin is awesome! We could use it to vote!" (I remember at least two other threads similar to this.)

And that's fine, but I'd just like to point out that there is already a system which allows people to vote with their money. It's called capitalism. The concept of expanding voting with one's money into government services is called "Anarcho-capitalism".

Capitalism does not provide equal voting rights since it favours the rich.  It is not therefore a form of democratic self-representation.

[Lethn]

Depends on how you define equal, I see many people talking about equal rights and the main thing that comes out of there mouths is they want equal rights for 'them' or their 'people' they tend not to give a crap about anyone else, I agree that capitalism by itself isn't equal but it certainly seems to be pretty efficient at sorting things out.

[myrkul]

Capitalism does not provide equal voting rights since it favours the rich.

I hear this a lot. Nobody's been able to prove it to me. Give it a shot, you might be the one.

[kungfoo]

I do think there's nothing wrong with the main voting system.

The voting system in the UK has led to a rich elite taking control of the governance of the country and provides the voters with a choice of which lies they prefer.  The politicians are no longer even apologetic about their lies, nor their corruption, until the media forces them to be so.

[kungfoo]

Capitalism does not provide equal voting rights since it favours the rich.

I hear this a lot. Nobody's been able to prove it to me. Give it a shot, you might be the one.

If, as you say, people 'vote with their money', then it is surely obvious that unequal ownership of money equates to unequal rights in voting.  If not, then please explain how the equality of voting rights would be maintained when 'voting with money'.

[myrkul]

Capitalism does not provide equal voting rights since it favours the rich.

I hear this a lot. Nobody's been able to prove it to me. Give it a shot, you might be the one.

If, as you say, people 'vote with their money', then it is surely obvious that unequal ownership of money equates to unequal rights in voting.  If not, then please explain how the equality of voting rights would be maintained when 'voting with money'.

Product A costs $1. Product B, which is a luxury version of A, costs $2. The poor people buy A. The rich people, who can afford the extra $1, buy B. Which product will there be more produced of, A or B?

[kungfoo]

Capitalism does not provide equal voting rights since it favours the rich.

I hear this a lot. Nobody's been able to prove it to me. Give it a shot, you might be the one.

If, as you say, people 'vote with their money', then it is surely obvious that unequal ownership of money equates to unequal rights in voting.  If not, then please explain how the equality of voting rights would be maintained when 'voting with money'.

Product A costs $1. Product B, which is a luxury version of A, costs $2. The poor people buy A. The rich people, who can afford the extra $1, buy B. Which product will there be more produced of, A or B?

What is the ratio of poor to rich?  What is the cost of production of products?  What is the worth of $1 in GDP in this notional realm?  What is the point you are trying to make?

[myrkul]

Capitalism does not provide equal voting rights since it favours the rich.

I hear this a lot. Nobody's been able to prove it to me. Give it a shot, you might be the one.

If, as you say, people 'vote with their money', then it is surely obvious that unequal ownership of money equates to unequal rights in voting.  If not, then please explain how the equality of voting rights would be maintained when 'voting with money'.

Product A costs $1. Product B, which is a luxury version of A, costs $2. The poor people buy A. The rich people, who can afford the extra $1, buy B. Which product will there be more produced of, A or B?

What is the ratio of poor to rich?  What is the cost of production of products?  What is the worth of $1 in GDP in this notional realm?  What is the point you are trying to make?

Oh, come now... You're evading. All other things being equal to the world today, which would be produced more, A, or B?

The point that I am trying to make is that capitalism is a proportionally representative system.

[TECSHARE]

Capitalism does not provide equal voting rights since it favours the rich.

I hear this a lot. Nobody's been able to prove it to me. Give it a shot, you might be the one.

If, as you say, people 'vote with their money', then it is surely obvious that unequal ownership of money equates to unequal rights in voting.  If not, then please explain how the equality of voting rights would be maintained when 'voting with money'.

What about randomized systems of physical verification of various levels? Perhaps a randomized selection of public keys sorted by a jurisdictional and or geographic area which would then be paired into small groups of 3-6 people who would then either call, physically meet, or mail the individual in question. Eventually anyone acting as a sock puppet will be paired with some one they have met in their locality before and be outed and excluded. This has the added benefit of building local community as well.

Another option that might work is biometrics. I personally don't like the idea of large central databases of biometric data, and I would assume many here would agree so something that refrained from using raw biometric data would be ideal. My idea would be a combination personal key/finger print or perhaps even DNA. A specific finger would be designated such as the right thumb, and volunteers would use devices to assure the correct finger was being scanned. The devices used would have to be non networked and immediately encrypt the voter's biometric data with a publicly known encryption algorithm combined combined with a voter's private key. This would not only make the system extremely secure, create a designated unique identifier, it will also create security that is likely to protect the biometric data of the voter for a lifetime.

[Elwar]

I am currently in Alpha stage on just such a system.

Check out https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=207759.0 for a more detailed description on how it works.

[donjoe]

I don't think it's based on Bitcoin tech in any way, but this seems to be close to launch under the same name as the current thread: http://signup.bitgovote.com

there is already a system which allows people to vote with their money. It's called capitalism.

Thanks, we know it very well, in fact it's the one that's already in place and that lots of people are tired of. It's the system where the richest people are the only ones who have enough money to candidate, to lobby around and to fund massive manipulation (or "electoral") campaigns to get themselves elected, after which they continue to make even more money from their positions of political power. The concentration of economic and political power into the same hands - those of a very small minority - is possibly the worst idea in the history of politics.

The concept of expanding voting with one's money into government services is called "Anarcho-capitalism".

*Mistakenly called, as it's actually a form of plutocratic authoritarianism rather than anarchism. Anarchism can only exist when each individual has exactly equal political power to any other individual. Any "proportionality" nonsense that deviates from this, based on any criterion whatsoever, is a step away from anarchism and toward authoritarianism.

Absolute authoritarianism is when one person has all the power and everyone else has zero power. Absolute anarchism is when everyone has exactly equal power. Intermediate shades can be categorized as anarchist or authoritarian based on which of these extremes they're closer to. Through its typical effects of deepening economic inequalities to the point of absurdity, unfettered capitalism would quickly turn into one of the worst authoritarian systems the world has ever seen.

[ktttn]

Sounds extremely and unnecessarily complicated, I do think there's nothing wrong with the main voting systems, the biggest thing wrong with them is that once a politician is elected citizens have no rights and can't take any steps to get rid of the leaders or block their laws until the next election. A classic example is here in the UK there's lots of talk about a referendum on the EU and the Scottish independence referendum, the politicians are actually wanting to ask peoples opinions on it and the people in power are doing absolutely everything to slow it down because they know how people will vote.

The last time we had a referendum was on the awful AV system which I actually voted no on.

My emphasis added.

The electoral college is insane. Representative democracy is insane. People at large putting their resources  into a project such as roadways or other would-be govt projects (not into people with nice smiles, clean light skin and pressed suites) by directly funding it, is not insane.

Capitalism does not provide equal voting rights since it favours the rich.

I hear this a lot. Nobody's been able to prove it to me. Give it a shot, you might be the one.

Don't feed the trolls, kungfoo.

[jdbtracker]

OP It is a great idea, how do we make it happen?

I personally believe that power itself has to be understood to create a proper governance system,

What is power? Power is the ability to act.

How is power magnified? Through collaboration, through manipulation(positive or negative), through increasing force, by gaining a edge above normal, etc.  There are many ways to gain it, by understanding how power manifests itself can create a properly built system. for example: person A has an idea, understands that they simply do not have the resources to bring about their idea by themselves, they convince others in one way or another to help them, for every person they have convinced 100%  means they have gained someone that has doubled the power of that idea and halved the time for it to exist. Person B comes along and likes the argument, sees it as a promising solution, but thinks they can improve it... they remix it and modify the idea enabling the idea to go places it could not go before... the power of action has just been enhanced. Person B's improvement is great but person C wants it to go further so they try harder and look for ways to improve beyond what others are seeing.

This force is not simply based on opinion... governance is about the power to act on that information, who has the power to act upon these " actionable items"? the individual, the more connections and proper modifications an idea gets the wider it spreads giving individuals the power to act individually... but can they? are they informed enough? do they have the knowledge to tackle these problems? do they even have the time? knowledge and experience can be very exclusionary.

We can gather all the information we want but if there is no one designated to create a precise and proper response in a timely manner can we ever consider a poll system adequate?

I'm not destroying your idea but putting it into perspective... what is Governance? what is this idea? that is were you must begin. Letting everyone know what governance is as an idea.

why do I think this way? because I know there are many solutions but not everyone will like them... why not make a massive big data gathering mission organize information precisely with gps data on utilities, buildings, trains, planes and automobiles, who works in what government building, how the entire system is running not just at a utility level, or a singular problem but as an entire planet with massive infrastructure deployed, who fixes the problems? hire the nearest plumber to fix the pipes? the best one? the one that gives us the best deal? who will judge? all of us? who will pay? who controls who gets paid? who makes sure the job is done? properly? it will be an interesting journey and I hope you can handle the millions of ideas and the endless variations that you will find.

but on the blockchain and crypto question.

start simple, use what works and add to what works, beginning with polls and categories, but do to the nature of human knowledge, that it constantly changes, flexibility is paramount. Keep adding information real information about the world to be available infrastructure, statistics, arial views, latest government research, all information for a people to make proper decisions... accurate information. Everyone can give their opinion but people like the blockchain have to be verified to know they are a trustworthy source of information on a specific subject, the person becomes a blockchain of verified knowledge viewable by others to gauge properly their domain expertise, this person can form groups with other experts forming chains of trust, they have no more power than other citizens but in polls you can see how knowledgeable the voting citizens are on the subject. The polls are created by anyone so are the tests to gauge expertise to reflect a changing understanding of the world... in a properly working system it gets expanded and changes over time, yet retaining it's historical fields of knowledge.
The blockchain for the whole system would be the history of all previous decisions and polls. To avoid the problem of having joe from montana sent to idaho to repair the pipes, because 9 out of 10 people voting for who does the job did not even live where the plumbing was broken, who gets to vote for something to be done actually has to be within the problems area of effect. verifying this would be done through cryptography, your information is on the public blockchain your public key is on there and is part of the voting system, you update the information yourself and since it is public... if your lying someone will notice you change your location every few minutes so you can mess with their plumbing. The people who vie to provide services have to prove they can to the people who are most affected... if their not happy they'll tell everyone what a crappy job they did and even that they got swindled, nothing got done. A chain of trust develops the fly by nights die off and the resilient committed business owners remain and everyone knows they can trust them.
Developing proper law enforcement would still require laws, laws are the rights that every individual must have historically considered and modified by every person who has thought about it. Why? because a large group can infringe against these rights easily against an individual, the government is big because it has to be bigger than all competing groups to enforce these rights. In a Direct Democracy system certain parts of government have to be designated and verified to be able to act not just by the individual but by the collective.. ie. people trained designated and verified to uphold the individuals rights even at the cost of their own. people need to be able to respond and assemble in force fast, verified trained and equipped citizens... the key to creating parallels from government. military, police, legislation, judicial etc is this verification process that is transparent... the system would have to be fully open for all military, police, infrastructure support volunteers to be verifiable by non-trained civilians.  but the big part is knowing an individuals web of knowledge, their emotional state, their preparedness.... informed, educated, empowered citizens taking on the responsability at an individual level to act, defend, judge every other citizen by the common consensus on the rights of an individual.

[RagnarDanneskjold]

There have been a number of interesting btc based voting projects floating around for a few years:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60229.0

I suppose there are many human problems that could be vastly improved if they ran on similar decentralized networks.  The problem is lack of incentive. Billions are spent enticing Americans to go vote and most of us do not bother.


[/quote]
Product A costs $1. Product B, which is a luxury version of A, costs $2.
Oh, come now... You're evading. All other things being equal to the world today, which would be produced more, A, or B?
The point that I am trying to make is that capitalism is a proportionally representative system.
[/quote]


A: The initial demand (& production, ATBE) is greater for Product A; over time, Product B will surpass.

We will now call this the 'iPhone 5c effect'®

A 'perfect' voting/governance system is actually scarier than conventional nation-states built on old-fashioned currency influence.  Being that Americans, en masse, are sadistic maniacs - I'll pass on Mob-Rule.

I can think of nothing on earth more fair, equitable & democratizing than money.  Unlike most of the industrialized world's 'rights & privileges', money is available to everyone, you can use it for almost anything, there are few limits on the variety of ways it can be created or how much of it you can have. It is like magic!

'The luxury of today is the necessity of tomorrow. Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, an indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone. Luxury consumption provides industry with the stimulus to discover and introduce new, things. It is one of the dynamic factors in our economy. To it we owe the progressive innovations by which the standard of living of all strata of the population has been gradually raised' -LVM

[bitlancr]

Thanks, we know it very well, in fact it's the one that's already in place and that lots of people are tired of. It's the system where the richest people are the only ones who have enough money to candidate, to lobby around and to fund massive manipulation (or "electoral") campaigns to get themselves elected, after which they continue to make even more money from their positions of political power. The concentration of economic and political power into the same hands - those of a very small minority - is possibly the worst idea in the history of politics.

What you're describing there is cronyism - the obvious consequence of having a manipulable central authority.

Through its typical effects of deepening economic inequalities to the point of absurdity, unfettered capitalism would quickly turn into one of the worst authoritarian systems the world has ever seen.

Au contraire, 'unfettered' (i.e. relatively unmanipulated) capitalism lead to the greatest overall rise in living standards the world has ever seen. Economics isn't a zero-sum game: rich getting richer doesn't imply the poor get poorer.

To the original point by myrkul, I agree that we can already vote with our money (capitalism). Distribution of power is irrelevant, once 'political power' is a thing of the past.