About
The answer stares us in the face every day.
Democracy 2.0 is the inevitable movement that will put control of society in the hands of itself. It’s not exactly a new system of government. It’s a mechanism to decentralize leadership (not government itself) in our current system, both legally and peacefully. It can however be used to change government to however the people being governed want.
We all realize that the current system is broken. Democracy 2.0 is the first practical (non-violent, legal, effective, fair) way to begin gradually improving it from the ground-up, as opposed to tearing down the existing system and putting a completely new system in it’s place. It fuses online direct democracy, the United States government’s own public voter registration databases, feedback for all legislation, crowd-sourced funding, and social media with the elected representative system we already have in place.
Direct democracy is an ancient decision making process wherein any member of the community who wishes to participate can propose legislation and every member can vote. Direct democracy wasn’t practical when it was invented in Athens millenia ago because communication was limited due to the laws of physics. Using a revolutionary technology the world is just now truly understanding, known as the internet, legislation is drafted and passed by means of a simple transparent digital direct democracy system referred to as the democracy 2.0 system. For more details as to how exactly this system works you can view the patent I’m working on here.
The ideas of the people are gathered using D-2.0, and the power of the people can be gathered directly using the crowdfunding tool on D-2.0, in order to impact society. If the kind of power that money can’t buy is necessary, the power of the people is gathered via voting for a D-2.0 representative, their ideas are directed by the results of D-2.0 election process, and the power is then channeled by the elected D-2.0 rep. I refer to this concept as democracy 2.0 injection. It involves the community electing representatives of D-2.0 to, initially, low level positions of government. This is no different than the current system, except this electorate representative makes his sole campaign promise to convert D-2.0 legislation to legislation recognizable by the US government. Then, as a community, believers in this system must do their best to get problems in their community fixed. This can involve anything from writing a request to the city to repair a road, to legislation to change traffic laws, to drug laws, to firing ineffective police, to laws concerning this very system; in short, anything a city council member, mayor, or president would be able to do. If no one steps up to the plate, the elected representative must be prepared to do his job in the traditional manner. After all, he is also a citizen in his community.
All citizens can use D-2.0 to propose legislation and vote on it, instead of just the person they elected to represent them. This is a more literal, more efficient version of the representative democracy we claim to already have in place. To be a “citizen” in D-2.0 one must tie their online account to their physical location and their registered voting identity so as to be held accountable and prevent fraud. When a decision is reached using D-2.0, the D-2.0 representative executes this legislation using the legislative powers granted to him by the power invested in him by the state.
Think of an D-2.0 representative as a willing puppet leader. Try to get past the connotations of that phrase “puppet leader.” In the past, despots or the CIA have installed puppet leaders to assert their decision-making ability over foreign countries. Hacking democracy takes that idea and replaces the CIA with the community. Anything society decides using D-2.0, goes. The D-2.0 representative isn’t a leader so much as a conduit for the decision-making power of society. Instead of adhering to the political party views he must keep his campaign promise to the D-2.0 electorate.
Another way to think about it is instead of the elected D-2.0 representative’s brain doing the decision-making, the community using the D-2.0 system does. The introduction of this new way of making decisions concerning the flow of societal funds and energy is immediate, yet viewed from higher levels of government, it appears as though a legally elected city leader is appealing to the people that voted for him. So long as we still have the power to elect our own leaders, D-2.0 will be able to rise up to the highest levels of government.
Should this system prove useful, all levels of government will eventually be infiltrated by D-2.0 representatives. Every city will have an online D-2.0 community, but also be a part of a state D-2.0 community, and finally a national D-2.0. This means that a citizen can simultaneously participate in the legislation process at every level of government that affects him or her. Societies should be able to organize themselves how they want. Different styles of society need to have the freedom and flexibility to experiment, and allow the human population as a whole find the best way to live.
Every system has ideological foundations. These are what I consider the ideological foundations of democracy 2.0:
1) No single human is a god with all the answers. This includes but is not limited to: Obama, Karl Marx, JFK, FDR, Churchill, Washington, and Ron Paul. Most humans have some good ideas, and a few even have many good ideas, but it’s ridiculous to revere political figures as infallible entities.
2) Morality is a social construct. There is no objective right and wrong. Most of what we consider to be “moral” (such as legislation criminalizing killing or raping) is actually only accepted as good not because of what it says in a magic book, but the fact that it benefits society as a whole to criminalize these actions. There are people who think drugs are good, abortion is bad, and all guns should be eliminated. Regardless of what you and your buddies think is right, there will always be others who disagree. You can’t just impose what you consider moral on others without those morals providing them with tangible benefits.
3) We can only determine if legislation is useful after it is executed. No one predicted that the Prohibition would create more problems than it solved. It has only recently been discovered that in societies where abortion is legalized, the crime rate drops dramatically a generation later. If certain legislation is not useful, then our government has the power to repeal or amend it. Furthermore, bad legislation is oftentimes passed with the best of intentions. Intentions don’t matter. Measurable impact on society does.
4) It is much more practical to gradually change laws little by little from the ground up, than to instigate a comprehensive system reboot from the top down. When coups, revolts, top-down seizures of power, or civil wars are the tools used to change a system, the new system always eventually has the same problem as the previous system. The people who recently seized power have to be concerned with maintaining their authority, and make every effort to suppress the potential power of others. The power over society that leaders possess eventually starts to “build up”, corrupting the decision making process. This is what is meant by absolute power corrupts absolutely. Keeping decision making fluid and decentralized prevents this hegemonic build-up.
5) There is no universal best way of living. Different governing styles (and lifestyles for that matter) work for different populations at different locations in space-time. Cultures are not homogeneous. Unlike the rest of the world, Jews, Muslims, and Americans think it’s okay to cut off parts of babies’ dicks. Some cultures find it acceptable to have no minimum drinking age. Some cultures find it acceptable to have an age of consent of 14. Some cultures think guns are necessary to a healthy society. Some cultures think treating criminals nicely reduces the amount of repeat offenders. Some cultures even think it’s okay to kill their own citizens without so much as a trial. All these different ways of living are equally valid. And when you’re born into one of these cultures without your consent, you should always have the ability to change it.
6) There’s no essential human nature, and you’ll never be able to force everyone to behave a certain way. Some political ideologies are based on the idea the system is broken and people are inherently good. Therefore, if everyone just behaved nicely and worked together, we could have a perfect society. This is an unreasonable demand on humanity. Right off the bat this way of thinking doesn’t account for the fact that at least 1% of the human population are sociopaths. Sociopathy is a neurological disorder. People don’t choose to be this way any more than homosexuals choose to be aroused by the same gender. There will always be some good humans, some bad ones, and everything in between. No one can control other people’s behavior; however, everyone should be able to exert some control over their environment.
Instead of politicians telling us “what the American people want” let’s just say what we want. Instead of complaining about problems, take action to solve them. And if you really don’t care, don’t participate.
The difference between the existing system and democracy 2.0
Democracy 2.0 by Austin Capobianco is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1sX0g6iXlIKaS1Dam9VN29vQnc/edit.
Democracy 2.0 
I think your concept is by far the best ive heard to date. and very reasonable. it does hinge on electricity though. and that creates a power imbalance. (those who control electricity and those who dont) if we can ever get this off the ground. the first legislation should have to do with strengthening and maintaining the power grid. so that no one person or group can control it. id love to discuss this further with you
Thanks for your comment!
I’m pretty sure the first legislation would have to be small things, like improving school lunch menus and roads, in order to provide evidence that this idea is useful. No one wants to take a big risk with a (kind of) new idea.
Most people already think that no one company should control the power grid. Once this hacking democracy idea gains power and credibility, people will have the tools to execute these necessary, common sense changes to our current system.
If you’re interested in further discussion with me, just ask away! You can either continue using this site’s comments, the facebook page, or even contact me via email at austin.capobianco@gmail.com
just curious would participation be voluntary? would a required % of ppl be mandated to participate? (forced to carry a smart phone/voting device) not that i think we’ll have a problem with participation. just wondering how this might work?. if it comes to the point when grocery stores and gas stations are empty. i.e collapse of the dollar, ww3. foriegn invasion. could this system come after an event of that nature? or do u think it has to be implemented while things are still good?
Participation would be voluntary. At least initially, 3% of the population of a given state, city, etc would be required for legislation to pass. I chose this number by looking at what voter thresholds are already in most parts of the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_threshold
This, like every single part of this system, is subject to change. People would just have to decide they want to change it. I personally think that having a minimum election threshold of 3% is reasonable, because I believe more people would vote if they were voting for ideas, instead of people. In any case, it’s much better than the 0.0001% we use now when voting for legislation.
It certainly would be easier to implement while times are still good, but it is not necessary. Small enough communities could theoretically begin using a paper version of this system if we no longer have internet or traditional political leaders.
I would assume these organized communities would thrive, at least compared to the roving packs of bandits or what have you. Eventually other individuals and groups would see that this system benefits everyone who plans on starting a family and more people (especially women who need the protection of the state more than men) would move there, and the reach of this system would gradually expand.
The collapse of the dollar is irrelevant. We would just begin using bottlecaps, ammo, or gold for currency, or begin using a barter system. Hell, we could still use the scraps of green paper we have today. In any case, society can definitely function without a federally backed fiat currency. Bakers are going to want things in exchange for their skill to make bread. Hunters are going to want things in exchange for their skill at hunting.
If a foreign invasion occurred, we would either have to fight it back, or integrate this idea with whatever new decision making system is in place. That’s the beauty of hacking democracy. It latches on to the bottom of the existing system and can gradually take over the entire thing, like kudzu.
And don’t think that having elected officials is imperative for this system to work. All someone has to do is get an existing leader, and existing decision maker, to relinquish power to this system. People are easy to manipulate. Chances are the “leader” would already be a puppet leader, but of someone else. All it would take is a bigger bribe to convince him to become a puppet leader of the people. As long as he still had his palace and shit, I doubt it would be hard to do this.
The idea is nice, I’m sure many before you have dreamt of doing away with the representative part of representative democracy. It’s been clear for a long, long time that we have the technology to do so, yet we do not.
I’m pretty sure it’s obvious that the reason for this is that the governing body would.. lose its job… if the people got what they actually needed and deserved.
That’s probably one of the reasons our government is on a run away train to tyranny, instead of the other way around, in a time when resources and clout could have made the good ol’ USA a world saver, instead of a world destroyer.
I guess it’s time for revolution.
The USA can still be a world saver.
The thing is American *people* need to be the ones doing the world saving, not American politicians.
It’s been time for revolution since at least the seventies. You think Bush and Obama are bad? All those tyrannical executive orders floating around the internet last year that allow for martial law to be declared at any time were actually issued by JFK.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp
Nixon heralded a decade of intense cynicism about the government and society in general. One of the reasons everyone accepts the shit our current leaders do is all the shit Nixon made us numb to (the other reason is fear of being “legally” drone-striked or indefinitely detained!) We just expect politicians to suck now. This is why so many people are apathetic these days.
It’s time to kick apathy to the curb, and do the impossible! That’s how Team USA rolls!
well the first step is recognizing that there is a problem. this is one idea of many to deal with the problem. in my opinion(assholes and belly buttons) the best idea out there on how to deal with the problem in the real world in a way thats at the very least feasable and at the very best practical and logical. if u have a better idea or counterpoints we would love to read em. the beauty of this concept the above statement applies to every issue and decision made
Funny you ask 🙂 My ideas are at the bottom.
http://unduecoercion.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-hidden-empire.html
i have the article up but havent read it yet. just so im clear. you wrote this article?? or are u reffering me to it?
Both
i read the article. i dont disagree with any of it. but i think your expectations are a lil high. after pondering this ddd concept. i think a better use of our focus should be getting the mainstream media to talk about this concept. as opposed to pointing out the wrongs of the current power structure. this concept in full realization completely dissolves power structures in general
Accepting recruits for the revolution @ votematrix.com
are u familiar with “stormcloudsgathering” he has FB and Youtube channels. he is a skilled orator and his logic fits right in with this concept of being above personal opinion and instead introducing practical ideas on how to run things in this country. i feel like a conference call to discuss this concept and how best to further it needs to occur. it would be best if we could get some of our current elected officials to at the very least give their opinion on this concept and at the very best join the cause. i have already posted links to your site on his fb page and mine. he has far more readers than i do. so its a start
Hahaha I actually tried to call in 2 weeks ago, and he wasn’t having any of this idea. He shut me down and disconnected me before I was done speaking. I tried to call in last week, but I gave up after being on hold for an hour. To be fair, I’m far more eloquent through text than using my voice.
He’s a great speaker and very intelligent. He is also a very dominant person and is very proud of the following he has produced with his “Road to WWIII” video. When I went to OWS meetings last year, the same kind of thing happened. People with good ideas get a little power hungry as soon as they obtain a following. They refuse to listen to dissenting opinions. They want the glory of being a revolutionary. I won’t lie, I want that too. The only difference here is I’m proposing a way to decentralize decision making fairly and efficiently. The whole point is that it eliminates traditional leadership and does not presume that there are objective moral truths or rights.
Still, I love that guy and he has great ideas. Honestly? I came up with this idea by trying to respond to his “After the Collapse Part 1” video. His ideas motivated me to think long and hard about a practical strategy. I would have posted in the youtube comments, but for some reason I can’t post any youtube comments from my computer. I still haven’t figured out the problem.
By all means, bring this idea up at the round table discussion next wednesday. I might even listen in.
im the same way. i much prefer discussion especially argument via txt. i read what u say and u read what i say. voice discussions never turn out that way. im also able to rethink and reexpress my views before submission. i have never personally called his show. i have last nights show paused while i type this lol. so many of the concepts are similar. im suprised he wouldnt hear it. but if u have dificulty expressing yourself using your voice i could see how he would not want to hear you. as im sure he gets plenty of ppl calling just to yell and scream nonsense. and yes its very easy to let power go to your head. nontheless i feel (im just an average joe who thinks for himself) that the 2 of you would and should make strong allies. and affect some real change. our core of leaders (ddd elected or not) must possess different skill sets. but one quality that should be required is humblness.
http://on.ted.com/Feiler this makes sense and can be applied on a larger scale
the agile programming discussed could be applied to the ddd concept. one of a few software options to consider
Nice find! I think DDD already applies this technique. There’s a heavy focus on feedback and flexibility. Feedback is one of the mandatory fields when drafting legislation. This in itself would solve a shitload of problems with government.
Furthermore I not only think DDD already has the capability to be used in this manner, it can also be used in other ways. People will probably gravitate towards the agile system if it is as effective in government as it is in families and companies.
With regards to your other post, I would love to connect with SCG, but I don’t really expect many people to take this idea seriously until I have a working DDD system, and perhaps a better name than DDD…
well i will attempt to facilitate a discussion between u 2. u can send him msgs on Ytube and FB. as i said this article is posted to his fb wall he may or may not read it. but his subscribers can. which is how i found it. i hate to say this but i think FB software is perfect for this. as it meets all the requirements. the ability to tally votes, post feedback, and the capacity to field and disseminate large amounts of data. and also ppl can choose their level of involvement (time invested). it also takes away the ignorance excuse. as one could never say “well i didnt know” im trying to think of better names but digital direct democracy always wins against any other names i think of. i would recomend distancing urself from the “hacking democracy” name as the sheeple tend to fear the term hack(ed)( ing)
maybe “direct involvement democracy” or the “digital govt. experiment” or maybe”direct involvement experiment” , ima keep going. the Instant feedback experiment/government, or maybe a title involving the words accountability or transparency something along those lines?
I like your ideas and enthusiasm behind them. I have started thinking recently along similar lines, looking at what has been done/proposed by other people. The model of the Online Party of Canada seems interesting to me. Also the ideas of vote transfer described in “Return to Direct Democracy, is it possible, do we want it?” by Henrik Ingo are interesting, I think. What do you think about those systems? Do you consider them to be reasonably close to what you propose? Thanks.
Thanks for your comment! The Online Party of Canada is a great start, but it seems like citizens can’t propose their own ideas or legislation. I don’t think vote transfer is necessary. If you don’t think you’re qualified to make a decision, then just don’t vote. This act itself increases the voting power of other (potentially more qualified) individuals without any complicated vote transfer algorithm.
But the truth is, it doesn’t matter what my personal opinions on how the system should work are. As soon as we have a viable group decision making system, we can begin using it to change the way the system itself works. We won’t know what works and what doesn’t until we try it, we just have to start somewhere.
The Online Party of Canada is a new party with a currently small base. It makes sense they started with voting, as anyone is willing to vote, while proposing and drafting legislation is much more challenging. But the idea itself is good. If your system is going to enable people to do that, great.
I think a system with vote delegating will look more appealing to people. One can never be a complete expert in something, but he or she will still want to make a choice. If one has a slight hope that one decision is better than the other, it is then rational for that person to make a choice. People can simply rely on opinion of somebody they trust. But anyway, it looks like you are not completely opposing it.
I agree, what really matters is actually implementing some ideas and correcting the system as one goes. Do you have some plan of action?
Perhaps the vote delegation system will look more appealing to some people. It definitely couldn’t hurt to have that option, so long as you also have the freedom to not vote if you don’t even feel comfortable delegating your vote to someone else. If someone isn’t confident about their decision making ability, they might not want to make a decision about who to transfer their vote too.
As for my plan of action: Step 1 is trying to spread this idea through as many vectors as I can and make my ideas as clear as possible. Step 2 is having a functioning system any citizen can sign up for. Step 3 is filling out a campaign finance sheet and officially declaring my bid for office. Step 4 is making youtube videos, giving speeches, and putting up fliers (preferably with QR codes) to get out the vote. Step 5 (after I get elected to office) is to use this system to the best of my ability to either propose bills in the house or govern my local community. I’m assuming at this point the level of constituent satisfaction will pretty quickly instigate others to begin running for office on this platform. Step 6 is to completely infiltrate the US government and begin producing more powerful legislation that amends the constitution dramatically. If constituent satisfaction is high at this level, I would expect other countries to follow.
Because I’m not a skilled programmer, I’m currently trying to work with Direct Congress to implement my ideas in their system. The programming team at the Online Party of Canada was willing to retrofit their system for the US and implement some of my ideas, but they (reasonably) want 40,000 USD. I’m also contacting anyone else I can and putting up ads for skilled programmers willing to volunteer on this project. A couple guys are already officially running for senate under a direct democracy platform. Don’t forget, you can help my telling people about this idea or even simply spreading this site around!
Thanks for the detailed reply!
Refusal to delegate his/her vote is also a decision which should be respected. No disagreement here.
I like your plan of action. I wish you success in spreading your ideas and building a group of supporters. It seems to me that succeeding in establishing an active community of like-minded people is prerequisite to fulfilling steps 2 through 6. When I started looking around I was pretty confident that such a group already exists. Instead I mostly found evidence of many attempts which ended nowhere, maybe some dormant project and a few isolated blogs. I only briefly checked metagovernment.org, maybe I will find something there. I also thought that establishing a system for voting on current legislation is a good idea that would attract participants. Then I found votetocracy.com site, which offers just that, but does not seem to be very popular. Maybe because it is somewhat half-backed and people behind it do not have a vision of turning it into a direct democracy tool, similar to the OPC site?
Same goes for Direct Congress, judging by the track of donations shown on their site. Maybe much more is going inside, you would know better. As for raising money, could one try kickstarter? Just a thought.
Austin,
Direct Democracy is a great idea. But how will you get from here to there? Good luck. Let’s put a step between here and there.
You once said: “the problems in the way we’re governed right now are due to the people with decision making power being disconnected from their constituents”
So let’s connect them. Let’s make an accountability system, where we and they know what they’re accountable for, and they have incentives to account for what they’ve done, to report to us, and we have better, more nuanced, choices in elections.
Imagine we use some simple technology to let everyone vote on issues. We avoid the crowd-sourcing work at first by simply having a disciplined team create questions and options and let people vote. Then we all can see the results, so we and politicians know what they’re accountable for. Atop this we add an effective communication system so politicians can report what they’ve done effectively as well as lead us if they think popular opinion is on the wrong track (like it’s unconstitutional).
Knowing two things, what the country wants, and what their constituents want, our elected officials can move forward in confidence. With the communication system in place, we, the people, can keep informed on the issues we care about. And, challengers can use it to communicate effectively with voters at low cost, so elections can be cheaper.
In this system, people are voting on issues, not doing the hard work of hammering out compromises- that’s still left to our representatives. And, our reps can now represent ALL OF US, not just the 55% from one party, since they know what we want. Now, they have to represent one party, even though most people might agree on many issues, and just vote for one party because of a few most-important issues. With this solution in place, parties will become less important.
Note that this system is already being built. Try it out. Complete a few political profiles on http://PeopleCount.org/reg.htm
As your hacking democracy system takes shape, those solutions can be put up for votes and we can hold our reps accountable for them. And, we can get rid of the team-created questions and answers by using some sort of crowd-sourcing technology.
Other things can change, as well. We could vote on clarifying the constitution- does the 2nd amendment give the people to own any weapons, just a gun and/or a rifle for self-protection and hunting, or does it just mean the states, or the country, must be able to defend itself? We could vote to clarify the constitution about whether a corporation has the same rights as a person, and whether money for campaigns is “free speech”. We could show our support for instant-runoff elections. And, we could give advisory-votes on 3rd-party candidates before the election so voters could know whether voting for them is “throwing their vote away” or not.
This first-step is easy. It just takes participation, and maybe $5-$10 of annual contribution for a couple of years, so it needn’t be funded by investors who expect a large return.
This aggregation of constituent sentiment is an excellent idea for an intermediary step. Democracy 2.0 shifts the power to the people, and that shifting needs to be a slow, steady process. The citizenry needs to first witness the internet being used to productively improve governance before trusting decisions made on the internet by the citizenry. Anyway, I’m definitely going to start promoting PeopleCount on this site. I am very interested in helping your cause! Please email me at austin.capobianco@gmail.com so we can discuss volunteering further. Also I have a bunch of questions for you.
1) Have any politicians contacted you interested in running on a platform based on this?
2) When do you estimate the results be available to view?
3) Do you have any plans to decentralize your system so motivated individuals can build a profile question list to determine the political profile of their city?
4) Do you have any plans to strengthen your identity verification mechanism? (I think even tying to a facebook account would be enough)
5) Will there be a method to increase the visibility of comments you agree with in the results?
6) How will the elected official’s feedback be integrated into your system?
Thanks for commenting!
> 1) Have any politicians contacted you interested in running on a platform based on this?
No, I haven’t had enough publicity yet. I’ve talked to 2 politicians and they’ve been interested. I will contact more.
> 2) When do you estimate the results be available to view?
National results can be viewed pretty easily, but it’s messy. There are too few users as yet for the results to be interesting. They’ll be available less than 2 months after we get some funding.
> 3) Do you have any plans to decentralize your system so motivated individuals can build a profile question list to determine the political profile of their city?
Yes, we do have plans to expand into states, counties, cities and school districts, as well as globally, to other countries and to settle international conflicts.
> 4) Do you have any plans to strengthen your identity verification mechanism? (I think even tying to a facebook account would be enough)
If you complete the Demographics profile, you’ll be asked for your dob and address and then your identity can be verified. As we get traction we’ll implement more checks.
> 5) Will there be a method to increase the visibility of comments you agree with in the results?
I’m not sure what you mean. Like be able to expose the comments in a Forum? I think these would be two separate things. Currently they are notes to yourself and to us. We’re looking to partner with someone to do forums, as well as informational links.
> 6) How will the elected official’s feedback be integrated into your system?
You’ll be able to either see their recent report(s) on an issue, or see the range of responses they’re willing to represent, or receive email updates. Our current thinking is to allow challengers to keep them honest, as well as let constituents vote on their comments with approval/disapproval as well as honesty.
Are there any news with this project?
Unfortunately no, and there won’t be until there is an app available that meets the lofty project requirements. Fortunately, other organizations have the same idea. Only one group need make a democracy 2.0 app for anyone to use. Check out: http://democracyos.org and http://nvbloc.org/
Yes, I just sent out a newsletter. Put yourself on the mailing list (PeopleCount.org/tohelp.htm) and send me an email and I’ll send it to you. There’s an edited copy on the website, mainly leaving out the google group (which no one has joined yet), and a few paragraphs about what happened in 2016 to now.
http://blog.peoplecount.org/project/transforming-politics-september-2017-newsletter/
The upshot is that I have about half of the demo done, 40% of the MVP, and no funding.
I can help in developing the web site, I was thinking of writing the application and found your site when I was researching on the topic.
Great concept finally a breakthrough when will this be a reality?
Like the great William Gibson said: “the future is already here, it just hasn’t been evenly distributed yet.” My money is on UBI being the norm in most countries by 2045 though, which will enable global NEETdom.
Hi Austin,
Someone has partially implemented a liquid democracy system: https://united.vote
Check it out, you can register (with verification), start voting, delegating, becoming a delegate yourself. I thought this might interest you.
Hi Austin,
We at VoteMatrix have come up with the step by step plan to get Democracy to v2.0. Please join our team and we’ll make history together.
-Robert Freeman