Democracy requires input from everyone, on every decision.
This blog is intended to follow the evolution of this idea from a mere thought, right through to a national solution. We will report status when changes occur, and provide a space for the growth and development of ideas.
Yes, we truly believe our tag line — Democracy. Finally.
And here we go….
The Canada Pension Plan controls over $366 Billion dollars on behalf of 20 million Canadians. They’re investing our monthly contributions to make sure we have money at retirement. Naturally, everyone wants them to play it safe when investing that money.
But have you considered exactly what are they investing in?
The Guardian quoted a CPPIB spokesman, saying, “CPPIB’s objective is to seek a maximum rate of return without undue risk of loss. This singular goal means CPPIB does not screen out individual investments based on social, religious, economic or political criteria.”
When I read that I hear warning bells. Do they really mean they will take any lucrative investment, even if it’s an ethical quagmire?
The CPPIB’s own ethics statement is clear:
tldr; only dollars matter; no screening of company ethics, only operations.
What drew my eye is their statement about about “private engagement.” This is the term used for conversations concerning ethical or moral issues with a company they are, or are considering, investing, in. The Board has decided they will never make these conversations public. Nor even acknowledge the conversations even occurred. They are also clear they refuse to bow to public pressure when deciding who and when to engage.
Let’s be real here — the practical effect is that these conversations do not occur. That they could choose to invest into such a morally repugnant enterprise as a for-profit prison says all we need to know about the usefulness of “private engagement.”
So to sum it up, all of the pension monies of millions of Canadians is being invested with absolutely no ethical considerations about how that money will be used.
Are we okay with this?
Can we develop a mechanism to trigger automatic, and public, engagement?
Indeed, the 21st century will be Africa’s time to shine.
This story briefly captures the use of a blockchain-based voting system in the recent Sierra Leone national election.
The inevitably of the move to digital voting seems undeniable. Our Proxy Agent system will fit nicely with this.
From the files of Seth Godin
It’s not an accident we’re disgusted. Politicians spend billions of marketing dollars to create the belief that voting is something that’s better to avoid.
They teach us that it’s not a responsibility we want to take.
They make it feel like a hassle.
The solution is simple, fast and cheap. Show up and vote. Every time.
I’m really excited to be building a way to make it really possible for people to do exactly that — participate in their own governance.
I’m done pretending that watered-down appeals, wrapped in vacuous non-partisan platitudes, are what will move this project along. If you think guns make sense in modern society, move along. We don’t need, or want you on this project.
The majority of Americans do NOT own guns. According to a 2005 Gallup Poll, only 30% of Americans own a gun (http://news.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx)
Further, the majority of Americans want to live free from fear. (Sorry, but I have no 3rd-party research to corroborate that assertion. If you doubt the truth of it, again, please stopped reading this blog. Goodbye.)
For those who stayed, this site presents technical solutions to making every voice heard in civic discourse. It is my conviction that if the real *majority* were heard from, gun ownership in America would start moving in the direction of the more sane countries of the world, that is, guns would be banished from general circulation.
After the sadness of Las Vegas, I am redoubling my efforts to bring this voting technology to the world. Sanity must be given a chance to reign.
I was just introduced to the Liquid Democracy project. The aim is similar to our own, they key difference being our focus on the ProxyAgent technology. Our expectation is to allow for most of the activity in the system to be direct voting, wheras Liquid Democracy is premised on using Delegates.
Fascinating stuff, and very encouraging to see, and learn from, other experiements in this space.
Q. Will we allow proxy agents to programmed to follow the guidance of other Citizen/agents? We could have millions of agents all being programmed to follow the lead of a single Citizen/agent. Is that a better or worse scenario that what currently exists?
Q. Is it possible for a system to be so open and transparent that it’s susceptible to abuse from others?
In the interests in safety and security, both the Free and Fair Voting Platform, and the ProxyAgent Voter Personalization tool will be open-source software. Open-source means that all of the is published and available to the public. In addition to what private individuals may do, the Free and Fair Vote organization will engage 3rd party consultants to audit the entire codebase on a regular basis. This scrutiny allows users of the system to have full confidence that the code
a) does exactly what it claims to do,
b) secures and protects their personal information, and
c) accurately counts and records all votes, and ensures the desires of voters is respected.