Suffrage via iVote The wave to come!
Change: Why just vote? When you can
One: What it is.
is a system of conducting polls which are done of, by,
and for the people at all levels of social organization,
the precinct for example, as well as for towns, cities,
states, provinces, nations - even globally thus finally
giving the people a voice. It is different from all
current polling systems in that the questions would be
sourced from the people. The system would provide direct
results very quickly and as needed: hourly, daily, weekly
or monthly depending on the import of an issue or
concern, any updates due to new information, research, or
as the status of an office holder, public official,
person of notoriety, or infamy might demand. The polling
would be dynamic. People could respond over time and
alter their response in accord with developments. This
would be the heart of a social revolution, as it would
promote social change on a global scale.
Two: Political Benefits
theory is that if we, the people, owned our own
perspective, had access to our own truth, and could
promulgate our opinions or perceptions; if we, the
people, knew, at any given moment what our thoughts or
opinions were upon a given issue, it would have
game-changing effects on the political realities in ways
that are just not currently possible. Social change would
proceed apace with such a system in place - no matter
what governments or the usual mass media outlets might
or polling, could occur at locations agreed upon by
groups such as families, neighbors, precincts and so
forth, although it wouldn't necessarily require meetings
all the time, once trust is established between
individuals and with the system. Although the meet up
places could be homes, business, schools, parks, a place
of worship, or café, these places could change
easily enough because the system will have a built in
"flash-mob" capacity for the convenience of those taking
part in the polls. Once someone is an established iVoter,
he or she could respond to a poll via a cell phone,
laptop, desktop, by phone, mail, or via another
a person would join the system by virtue of people they
know well, friends, family members, coworkers and so on.
This "hands on" or "hand shake" factor is the key so
establishing the system's security in that those
attending iVoting meetings could verify each others'
identity in multiple ways while having complete privacy
as to how they respond to a poll.
system would have near complete transparency, one would
have access to one's own record of polling, the voting
record of their precinct, of their neighborhood, town,
city, state and so on. It would always be possible to
check and cross check iVoting records at any time. People
could also share their records, should they wish to do so
individually, as a group and so on as a means of
established as a viable entity, the polling would become
a ubiquitous and integral part of the social fabric at
all levels and a raft of profound changes will then be
will be a polling of, by, and for the people. We, the
people, will ask the poll questions, find our own
answers, and become self-informed on any issue of the
day. In this way we, the people, will know what we, the
people, believe, think, want, like, or dislike. Because
the questions are sourced from the people, we will
finally have a work around all governmental and corporate
media. No longer will we be prey to manufactured
perceptions. Having our own access to our own truth and
being able to promulgate our own opinions would affect
the political realities in ways that are currently
iVote system will provide people with a "zero degrees of
separation" network. The people will be able to
coordinate action plans, organize, lend support to those
struggling for justice, and undertake direct actions as
they see fit including but not limited to boycotts,
strikes, divestments, positive investing and more.
personal level, it would enhance a given person's
self-perception as it would encourage social networking,
the discussion of issues, raise political consciousness,
and allow individuals to quickly and easily take action
to address issues of concern to them or society.
activism would be easier to organize and the people could
hold corporations and influential individuals accountable
by tracking their own poll numbers, and using the system
organizations would interconnect nationally and
internationally in order to promote a new economy where
the corporate behavior is monitored and guided into doing
better and better, this, of course, would certainly
the development of the iVote system could be similar to
what organizations such as Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter,
EBay, or Craig's List do an much more. However, if those
organizations, along with others, an alliance of
technical experts, both governmental or not, as well as
activist organizations and other stakeholders, could work
together to create an iVote system. What will
differentiate iVote from those systems is that it will
foster neighborly, face-to-face, social networking for
persons who, though proximate to one another, in the
"walking distance" or "very short drive" range, would,
ordinarily, ever meet, much less get know one anther or
lend each other assistance. Although there will be the
usual kinds of security involved with transactions, the
interpersonal connection, the handshake, will make a
comeback as people reconnect with each other,
Investor interest would
be based upon iVote's comprehensive potential for more
traffic than the older systems mentioned above as iVote
would do everything they do yet add in the vital thing:
the hardware and software will complimented, and
activated by, "people ware" those essential aspects of
the system involving interpersonal meetings, handshakes
Users would benefit as
members lowered each other's cost of living through
trading, bartering or the exchange of goods and services.
There could be a "Barter-buddy" portion of the system,
which would help neighbors exchange goods and or services
and "Neighbor-net" a function helping people to
coordinate activism on the precinct, neighborhood, zip
code or higher levels.
The system would allow
the exchange of goods, services, currency and more to be
done via cell phones, blackberries, web sites, other
social media and so forth. This is possible now that
banking and a wide variety of financial arrangements can
be done via cell phones or other capable devices.
Although conducting of
polls is the ultimate purpose of the whole project, the
social networking and its benefits would come first in
order to establish the platform, that would support
polling and have it become a ubiquitous, functioning part
of the social fabric on all levels.
The source of the
polling would be questions asked by people themselves in
a system that would begin with ideas originating in the
grass roots, sourced from individuals at precinct or
neighborhood levels. The questions would then percolate
their way up to the city, county, state, national and
international level as acceptance, controversy or need
allows. At first, the polls may well be local but as the
system gains in popularity, by proving itself
practicable, it would, by encouraging grass roots, crowd
sourced political awareness, effect polities around the
Membership would be
based on participation and dependent, at some level, on
face-to-face recognition by other members. For polling a
"chipped" token or specially encoded thumb drive, could
be used at a location where witnesses would insure each
person gets one chance to enter poll data. We do this
sort of thing already with voting machines and credit
How would a
person join in?
Five, technological Notes
People would join iVote
via friends, family, coworkers, and acquaintances, there
could be a set number of persons required to "invite" a
given individual. This would make the system
interpersonal, and, essentially, based on face to face
meetings, handshakes both real and virtual, in the form
of exchanged data between friends. This would make the
system interpersonal and provide a basis for
How would someone get a polling question placed before
The queries by people
would be sourced at the precinct or neighborhood level.
Poll questions, which garner support, meaning a requisite
percentage of total responses, whether negative or
positive, are then sent on to higher levels, meaning
larger regions or groupings of people. There would have
to be an aggregating function so that similar questions
are grouped or combined. Of course persons in government
or media could also propose a polling question but it
would have to proceed in a like manner. A polling
question will rise through the levels in accord with the
interest the people have in responding, again, whether
negative or positive.
This would, by
encouraging grass roots, crowd sourced political
awareness, affect polities around the world.
Will this supplant the usual kind of voting?
iVote, it is really not
meant to supplant voting, but rather it will be an
important supplement to it. A parallel system, if you
will. iVote's purpose is to change the way the people, on
all levels, and as often as needed, make their opinions
known. In an iVote world the role of the media and
government would be different than it is today.
What this means is that
iVoting would evolve to create a three-part cycle to
public discussion on any issue. First, an issue would
rise to importance via iVote polling, second, public
figures would rise to the occasion and, through debates
and discussions, analyze the issue from various points of
view&emdash;so as to inform the people, third, the role
of the media would be to cover these events and add the
contributions of those who have expertise to share. The
media would function as one means to disseminate those
discussions, debates, research, and information so that
the public at large could then amend their response to
the polling question over time, via iVote. Thus would we
all be part of a system that creates a true vox populi.
Therefore, while it is not really voting, per se, despite
its name, I chose it because the moniker has a marketable
How will polling be done?
The essential aspect of
this system, which sets it apart from all the others, is
that to join and or participate you will be need to meet
your neighbors and shake hands, or the cultural
and poll taking could take place at all manner of centers
as long as they are very local, the corner store,
neighborhood school, firehouse, a neighbor's home or
local business, religious place or community hall. All of
these places could be possible locations to meet your
neighbor, engage in business to verify the taking of any
poll, they can be changed by mutual agreement.
The polling would be via
chipped "tokens" or encrypted thumb drives, used in
concert with a chain of trust, friendship, neighbors and
so on, so that polling could be done easily,
conveniently. One would "load up one's token" or thumb
drive with iVote data, take it to the local meeting so
that witnesses could verify you used you responded to a
poll by exchanging data with the system. Any number of
issues could be covered at one time.
A model for
consideration might be Estonia's electric voting system,
perhaps with a national ID card with encryption key and a
card reader in computer so you can verify your polling
and audit, your groups or localities could do so as
What would be a "good result?
I would say that any
polling question meeting a threshold, say 75% of the
public approval or disapproval could well require the
government's consideration, morally - certainly, legally
- eventually but all those who run the political systems
would subject to an ongoing evaluation by the people
without a doubt.
However, if it is only a poll, how will that really
iVote is a system of
polling and yes, it is only a poll, but it allows
something that, at this point in human history, has not
ever existed before and is only now, in this day and age,
possible, which is to say the ability of the people to
formulate their own questions and do their own polling
of, by, and for themselves. This will allow them to know
for certain what they think, want, like, dislike, approve
or not approve of - without any intermediary. It allows
intimate and national polling done by and for the people
and is a run around the government, the 1%, the mass
media and so on and so forth.
The heart of iVote is a
system allowing "anytime polling" on issues great and
small. The people will no longer be told what they think,
want, believe and so on. It would be a game changer.
What about people who do not have connections or have
iVote could include
persons voting via a trusted friend, phoning in, even
using a written note or simple, printed form, which could
be marked using a pencil or pen. A computer would not be
needed in all places at all times because trust,
handshakes, friendships and more could allow anyone to
participate via community connections.
What about repressive governments or similar
As long as voting is
done in centralized, controlled, locations, the
authorities can monitor everything, control what is on a
ballot, make determinations as to what any result is,
control who and who cannot vote, prevent groups from
gathering, or local functionaries from enacting
legislation counter to "national interests."
In addition, a
repressive government could resist establishing iVote but
the world would still be able to weigh in on that
government's actions and or inactions.
iVoting can take place
at anytime and in any place, there will be no polling
places centrally controlled by governing agencies. People
could gather at homes, local buildings, backyards,
Café's at parks, on street corners, you name it.
The proverbial one percent will not be able to have their
minions everywhere, nor shut down all web activity,
phoning, friends meeting up, folks talking in the parks
or as they stroll along. It will be very difficult to
stop the dissemination of polling results. The genie is
out of the bottle. Social evolution will proceed.
In addition, it may well
be that, eventually, voting could be done in a way very
similar to this.
What about members doing business with each other?
There would be the
notion that any agreement could be witnessed, and
verified by members agreeing to act as witnesses and or
mediators when such is needed. There are many existent
community arbitration organizations, certainly a protocol
would be established for handling complaints.
Couldn't this be done much more simply?
Yes, the large scale
website is not absolutely necessary. If all that is
really needed is the means for taking polls, a far
simpler website structure would be possible. This would
be less expensive, far easier to set up and it could be
set up in a much shorter time period. What would make
that possible is people organizing to support the concept
and then the creation of the web access for iVoting.
How would it
be set up?
There would be no new
technology needed. Everything necessary for this system
to be put in place or ready to be taken "off the
After talking with a
computer programmer as to what would be needed to set
something like this up, I was told that some dozen or so
programmers given room and board for 8 months or so could
create the code for the system I have attempted to
describe. It would be scaled up using cloud computing and
so reduce the costs of expansion.
The participation, at
the polling place level, will be dependent on
face-to-face recognition by other participants as well as
real and virtual handshakes. One could use a token or
software program in a flash drive to publicly respond to
a poll. Those present, the witnesses would insure that
each person gets one vote. We do this sort of thing
already with voting machines and credit cards.
It does require planning
but I've been assured the technical aspect requires
nothing that does not already exist in terms of software
or hardware and that security would be sourced at the
individual user level.
intent upon problem solving and, in association with
Ideas Consulting of San
embarking on another means of affecting the warp and woof
of our social fabric so as to promote a healthy change in
the evolution of the human civilization or community on
more is coming but this note provides notice that help is
on the way, in the meantime, to make inquiries, see the