austincap / d-2.0

A system for decentralized decision making

A decentralized decision making system.

Forking is encouraged.

INTRO

Disclosed is a system for a user interface that makes online direct democracy more accessible and fair than prior works allow. A website is created that allows users to post open-source legislation, vote on it, comment on it, edit the legislation, and upvote it. In order for a user to obtain these privileges on the website a user must be a registered voter. Each user recieves one vote per issue and the vote tallies are stored in a blockchain to prevent centralization of voter data. This system can not only be used for governing, but also decentralized decision making in any organization. The decision making power of this system is injected into existing governing bodies, effectively decentralizing decision making in existing government systems.

The existing system of governance is bloated and ineffective. We are still trying to govern ourselves with the methods used for the past 300 years. Rational, non-emotionally charged discussion is much easier to obtain via text discussion on the internet as opposed to using paper documents and speech in large rooms, such as in US Congress. Furthermore as society has grown more and more accustomed to the internet, a clear desire for the public to not only engage in political discussion, but to directly influence and examine legislation via the internet has emerged. Examples of this are the whitehouse.gov/petition, govtrack.us, and nulpunt.nu websites as well as the multitude of social media sites and other petition websites. Many citizens even write emails directly to their representatives.

Several systems for implementing an internet-based governing system have all been proposed, but they have all failed. The difficulty in using any existing direct democracy framework I believe is a barrier to the implementation of that governing system as of now. A second problem is that many fear manipulation of the voting data stored in a centralized server. A third problem is the fact that the individuals holding the power in existing systems are oftentimes reluctant to relinquish it. A fourth problem is the fact that feedback is not emphasized in any existing governing system. This invention seeks to rectify these problems.

SUMMARY

This system this invention uses is at it’s core a combination of several other systems, including crowd-sourced funding (similar to kickstarter), an upvoting system, messaging system, & commenting system (similar to reddit and nulpunt), an open-source editing system (similar to github), a survey and integrated feedback tool, as well as a simple democratic voting system. I believe this particular combination of these features would not only make direct democracy more accessible than existing direct democracy systems, but allow a greater versatility in how the system is used.

This system includes a variety of components. A user must first create an account. To prevent voter fraud, this account is verified using information found in one of the 50 voter look-up sites provided by each state of the US government.

Once the account is created, a user may draft and vote on legislation. Other users may edit and comment on any legislation. The legislation a user may interact with is tied to the location they are a registered voter. Users also have the option to “upvote” legislation and comments. Upvoting involves clicking a thumb-up symbol next to a comment or a legislation post, increasing the visibility of said post. Ideally, upvotes and comments would also be stored in their own blockchains along with the blockchain for actual votes on legislation.

Authors of legislation must select an option for funding their legislation if it requires money to execute, either crowdfunding or taking money out of the budget amassed through taxation. Even if the legislation passes by vote, it doesn’t officially pass until it has acquired the necessary amount of funds.

This invention is powerless to change society without the ability to be executed. It is also necessary to provide a method of injecting the decentralized decision making process into an existing system. The method I propose is referred to as "democracy 2.0 injection.” In it, a candidate runs for any public office under the campaign promise of making decisions almost solely based on the results of the d-2.0 system.