Direct democracy framework   

This patent application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/059,120 filed on 5 Jun. 2008, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.

A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile preproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the invention

This invention relates to method and process for removing inefficiencies and barriers to entry from the direct democratic process, making direct democracy a more fundamental component of everyday life in society.

2. Description of Related Art

With today\'s technology a single email is sent and resent and can eventually end up arriving in a multitude of different inboxes. Using this principle, there is disclosed a voting tool that can be used to quickly reach multitudes of individuals. For example, the user interface of the voting tool includes a checkbox to allow recursive voting; when this feature is selected, users receiving an initiative have the ability to forward it on to a user list of their own choosing. Those users in turn would be able to forward it on to users of their choosing and so on. In this manner, it\'s possible for an initiative to spread out to vast numbers of individuals within a few iterations of the process. For example, if ten people are asked to respond to an initiative, and they in turn each ask ten more people, and the process is continued for ten cycles, the initiative will reach millions of people, a number which is far more than the practical limits of the number of people who would have access to the appropriate technology to participate in this voting tree.

What is needed is a process that allows an end user voting tool to generate a counter-initiative (an initiative that automatically records a vote to oppose the original initiative in conjunction with a vote to support the counter-initiative) or an amended initiative, and still allow the user to record a vote of support or no opinion to the original initiative.

Through the constant exchange of initiatives, counter-initiatives, and amended initiatives, the contribution of everyone in the voting tree will be absorbed to ensure that the very best available thinking is included in the final output of the process.

SUMMARY

The method of voting disclosed is a software tool that can be integrated into an email or instant messaging application that has the following capabilities:

Instead of allowing recipients to respond to the sender with a message of their own, recipients can only respond in support, opposition, or no opinion. This message will be called an initiative. The tool then provides the ability to record a tally of the responses that are received, effectively tracking votes for each initiative.

The tool also includes a checkbox to allow recursive voting; when this feature is selected, users receiving an initiative have the ability to forward it on to a user list of their own choosing. Those users would, in turn, be able to forward it on to users of their choosing, and so on. As responses are sent back up the voting tree created by this recursive process, the tally of incoming responses is calculated and passed back along the tree to the original sender. Note that the voting roster itself is not sent to the original sender, just the end tally. As the process proceeds, the original author of the initiative ends up collecting a total tally of all the votes cast against the original initiative; that tally is then sent back out through the tree so that all users receive constant updates on the votes for and against the initiative as it grows.

The tool allows users to launch counter initiatives and amended initiatives of their own. An amended initiative allows support for the original initiative, whereas a counter initiative automatically includes a vote against the original initiative. As these derivative initiatives move through their own voting trees, they carry with them the original initiative on which they are based as attachments.

The tool also supports the automatic submission of a petition by defining a pre-defined voting management server to which to send a copy of the initiative once a specific voting threshold is passed. Notification of the initiation of a petition would flow through the voting tree, allowing other voters to participate in the petition.

The tool also uses a voting management server which combines the functionality of current web based voting servers with an email server to provide several unique capabilities as follows:

The voting management server provides an internet browser based version of the previously described end user voting tool.

The server also hosts open forums, in which users could subscribe to a specific topic and automatically receive all initiatives submitted to the forum. The server similarly hosts petitions of successful initiatives, To support large scale petitions, voting management servers have the ability to distribute petitions across multiple servers.

The server can also replicate the capabilities of software distribution servers in updating client based end user voting tools.

Confirming and registering the identity of a voter is also provided by the voting management server. This process would allow the Direct Democracy Framework to replicate the security found in traditional voting systems.

The voting management server allows for a statistical sampling of voters to be selected so that, in case of particularly important initiatives, those voters could be selected to attend a congress.

Finally, these two technology components are brought together in a five step framework that provides the solution with the flexibility to meet the needs of any size of organization. The first step is always performed; then, based on the level of importance of the initiative in question, any of the additional steps that follow may be added:

A. Distribute voting is the first step; it is supported exclusively by the end user voting tool.

B. Petition is the second step in the process; it is supported by the voting management server.

C. Registration is the third step; it is supported by the voting management server.

D. Congress, the fourth step, occurs when a random selection of delegates from the list of registered voters is asked to attend a physical event and confirm their voting record.

E. Ratification is the fifth and final step in the process; in this step, direct democracy initiatives are incorporated into traditional democratic legislatures through their own standard voting procedures.

The foregoing has outlined, rather broadly, the preferred feature of the present invention so that those skilled in the art may better understand the detailed description of the invention that follows. Additional features of the invention will be described hereinafter that form the subject of the claims of the invention. Those skilled in the art should appreciate that they can readily use the disclosed conception and specific embodiment as a basis for designing or modifying other structures for carrying out the same purposes of the present invention and that such other structures do not depart from the spirit and scope of the invention in its broadest form.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Other aspects, features, and advantages of the present invention will become more fully apparent from the following detailed description, the appended claim, and the accompanying drawings.

FIGS. 1-8 Illustrative Recursive Voting

FIG. 1 shows Initiative Creation

FIG. 2 shows First Level Response

FIG. 3 shows First Level Voter Update

FIG. 4 shows Second Level Send

FIG. 5 shows Second Level Response

FIG. 6 shows Second Level Response Received

FIG. 7 shows Second Level Updates

FIG. 8 shows Level Updates Reach Second Level

FIGS. 9-28 are End User Voting Flowcharts

FIG. 9 is a flow chart of Main Program Loop;

FIG. 10 is a flow chart of Process User Input;

FIG. 11 is a flow chart of Create New Initiative;

FIG. 12 is a flow chart of Search Initiatives;

FIG. 13 is a flow chart of Display Initiative;

FIG. 14 is a flow chart of Edit Existing Initiative;

FIG. 15 is a flow chart of Send Existing Initiative;

FIG. 16 is a flow chart of Recursive Send Process;

FIG. 17 is a flow chart of Vote on Initiative;

FIG. 18 is a flow chart of Voter Response Process;

FIG. 19 is a flow chart of Voter Update Generation Process;

FIG. 20 is a flow chart of Process Inbox Messages;

FIG. 21 is a flow chart of Initiative In-processing;

FIG. 22 is a flow chart of Voter Response In=processing;

FIG. 23 is a flow chart of Vote Update In-processing;

FIG. 24 is a flow chart of Update User Profile;

FIG. 25 is a flow chart of Voter Management Server Message In-processing;

FIG. 26 is a flow chart of Send Petitions;

FIG. 27 is a flow chart of Petition Status Change Process; and

FIG. 28 is a flow chart of Petition Signature Process.

FIGS. 29-42 are Voting Management Server Flowcharts

FIG. 29 is a flow chart of Main Program Loop;

FIG. 30 is a flow chart of Process Administrator Requests—Part 1;

FIG. 31 is a flow chart of Process Administrator Requests—Part 2;

FIG. 32 is a flow chart of Group Administration Process;

FIG. 33 is a flow chart of User Administration Process;

FIG. 34 is a flow chart of Petition Administration Process;

FIG. 35 is a flow chart of Forum Administration Process;

FIG. 36 is a flow chart of Server Configuration Process;

FIG. 37 is a flow chart of Auto Process Inbox;

FIG. 38 is a flow chart of Auto Process Membership Request;

FIG. 39 is a flow chart of Auto Process Petition Request;

FIG. 40 is a flow chart of Auto Process Petition Signature or Link Request;

FIG. 41 is a flow chart of Admin Inbox Process; and

FIG. 42 is a flow chart of USER Details Process.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

There is disclosed a global infrastructure that would help change the world\'s political landscape. Utilizing the distributed technology of end-user voting tools—installed on computers, cell phones, and other digital devices across the globe—this new infrastructure would facilitate a viral virtual democracy process identified as distributed voting. When integrated with the centralized management capabilities of a Voting Management Server into a Direct Democracy Framework, this process can dovetail into petitioning, registration, congress, and ratification. Such a system makes it clearly possible to represent the will of the people far more effectively than the often slow-moving voting systems that serve us today, either by providing a conduit of the people\'s will to existing representative governments or, where appropriate, by facilitated governance by direct democracy.

Envision a software tool, perhaps integrated into the email or instant messaging application in use today, that—instead of allowing recipients to respond with a message of their own—only allows them to respond in support, opposition or no opinion. Such a tool might be very handy for making extremely quick group decisions, such as where to meet our friends for dinner or whether or not to approve the latest bylaw in a home owners association. Individuals would be able to author something they would like a group or organization to decide on—here referred to as an initiative—and select recipients from their contact lists to gather their input.

Communication related to the initiative could take advantage of various communication methods including, email networks, cell phone data networks, and the Internet. Within 10 to 15 minutes, responses would begin to come back and a list of people supporting and opposing the decision would emerge. Group actions could then move forward based on the simple and democratic process driving them. Such a tool could be called simply an End User Voting Tool. It is the first of two pieces of technology that are envisioned as part of the larger concept of the Direct Democracy Framework that is discussed in this document.

Given the constraints of a tool of this nature, perhaps installed in a personal computer, a laptop computer, personal digital assistant or a cell phone, it becomes a practical solution for groups of perhaps a hundred people or less to make decisions effectively and consider those decisions final.

With today\'s technology, a single email is sent and resent and can eventually end up arriving in millions of different inboxes. This principle can affect the reach of the End User Voting Tool if security concerns are put aside for a second. Imagine that the user interface of the End User Voting Tool includes a checkbox to allow recursive voting; when this feature is selected, users receiving an initiative have the ability to forward it on to a user list of their own choosing. Those users in turn would be able to forward it on to users of their choosing and so on. In this manner, it\'s possible for an initiative to spread out to vast numbers of people within a few iterations of the process. For example, if you ask 10 people to respond to an initiative, and they in turn each ask 10 more people—a process that continues for 10 cycles—the initiative in question will reach ten billion people—more than the population of our globe and far more than the practical limits of the number of people who would have access to the appropriate technology to participate in this voting tree.

The process by which people connect to the voting tree might also be accelerated by allowing users to transmit an initiative to an open forum in which other interested parties could subscribe and add themselves to the voting roster. Undoubtedly, users would also use conventional communication techniques such as email, instant messaging, chats, or just meetings over a cup of coffee to exchange dialogue about the initiatives outside the voting process itself.

New ideas could then become integrated into the process by allowing the End User Voting Tool to generate a counter-initiative (an initiative that automatically records a vote to oppose the original initiative in conjunction with a vote to support the counter-initiative) or an amended initiative (still allowing the user to record a vote of support or no opinion to the original initiative). Through the constant exchange of initiatives, counter-initiatives, and amended initiatives, the contribution of everyone in the voting tree would be absorbed to ensure that the very best available thinking is included in the final output of the process. In this process of group thinking the true benefits of the End User Voting Tool can be realized.

FIGS. 1 through 8 graphically illustrate an example of recursive voting. First, an initiative is created. In this case, illustrated is an example in which an initiative is first sent to five other users, FIG. 1. The next step involves the first-level recipients of the initiative sending back their responses, FIG. 2. In the third step in the process, once the votes have been received by the initiating end user voting tool, the vote count can automatically be sent out to the first level in the appropriate voter update packages, FIG. 3. At this point in the process, the voting cycle is completed assuming that no recursive voting is desired. For the purposes of illustration, five additional steps have been added to show how a second level is added to the voting tree. This happens when a first-level recipient initiates recursive voting (in this case, Recipient 1), FIG. 4. In the fifth step of the process, recipients in the second level of the tree can now vote. Their responses are sent back to the first level in the form of voter response packages. Although additional votes have been cast, the vote tally has not changed because the newly placed votes have not yet reached the author of the initiative, FIG. 5. The next step consists of the updates from the second level reaching the author and joining the total vote count. This step is automated. At this point, the vote tally now changes, FIG. 6. The seventh step is simply the automated update of the vote tally back to the first level, FIG. 7. Finally, in the automated eighth step, the total vote count reaches the second level, FIG. 8. The process is complete until the status of the initiative changes, any recipient in the tree chooses to change his or her vote or perhaps a recipient initiates further recursive voting.

The End User Voting Tool might be very handy if we are looking to make decisions in groups of perhaps a hundred individuals or less. However, larger groups—or even any group where we incorporate recursive voting into the system and create the voting tree previously described—may be vulnerable to fraud and corruption and may not be counted on as a final and reliable electoral process.

To solve this problem, we must combine cultural and organizational components with technology to achieve a workable solution. With that said, let\'s consider the possibility that the voting process we have described serves as the first of five process steps of the Direct Democracy Framework, a system to support the creation of ideas and law that any individual in the world can initiate. By creating a bright idea and asking our friends and colleagues to support it as well as allowing them to invite their own friends and colleagues to in turn support it, we have now tossed our creative energies into the ring of democratic thinking.

We can think of this distributed voting process as the first of the five process steps in the Direct Democracy Framework. If our idea is good, then we might find that we get a large number of supporting votes; we might then decide to take the second step and submit our initiative for petition to one or more organizations.

To create a virtual petition, we would simply check another box on our end user tool that indicates our ability to petition the initiative. In parallel, we would indicate where we are sending our petition—perhaps to a Direct Democracy Portal hosted by our local town council, our fantasy football league, or even a Global Democratic Union of Humanity. The hosting organization might also host open forums that allow initiatives to spread to users who are proactively interested in a given topic but may not have been contacted yet by someone in the voting tree for a given issue. The technical system that hosts this petition might be thought of as a Voting Management Server; it serves as the second piece of technology required in this process. In addition to hosting petitions and open forums, the Voting Management Server would also serve other purposes, some of which will be discussed later.

The petition process would be simple and similar to the paper petition process with which most people are familiar. An electronic record of the initiator\'s identity would be sent to the Voting Management Server while the fact that the initiative in question was now being petitioned would simultaneously be transmitted out across the voting tree created when we launched the initiative. Voters further up the tree would receive notification that the initiative they previously supported or opposed was being petitioned; they would then have the opportunity to automatically or manually sign the petition for or the petition against the initiative as well as forward the petition to the users to whom they originally forwarded the initiative.

To support large-scale petitions, Voting Management Servers would have the ability to distribute petitions across multiple servers. A small organization might host a petition on a single Voting Management Server whereas a global institution gathering millions of votes might collect the petition through hundreds or even thousands of interconnected Voting Management Servers. Over time, the petition would grow. The number of people supporting an initiative or opposing the initiative would be tracked, and the sponsoring agency would be able to make a determination—at a point it deems appropriate—to take further action, which might simply be to act on the petition immediately or perhaps move to the third step in the Direct Democracy Framework.

In the third process step in the proposed Direct Democracy Framework, our virtual system moves into the brick-and-mortar realm and begins to mimic how representative democracy is orchestrated in our modern world. For those organizations that require authentication of user voting, such as larger governments or other large public or regulated institutions, we could ask users to register their direct democratic activities. During this process a user would physically visit a site that facilitates direct democracy registration, which could be set up at local libraries and schools and administered by competent and neutral groups—similar to those who administer voter registration in the current democratic system. In fact, the direct voter registration process and the traditional voter registration process could easily be integrated into a single activity.

Once registered, the users would then confirm, in a secure environment provided by a Voting Management Server—perhaps at a terminal located directly in the registering agencies office—all of their positions on all of the direct democratic initiatives in which they were involved. This could be facilitated in a very trouble-free manner by allowing direct democracy participants to forward their registration data ahead of time, followed by simply proving their identity and confirming their positions during the registration process itself.

Through the registration process, participants in the Direct Democracy Framework would also gain the ability to participate anonymously, as they do in most representative democracies. Their votes and petitions could be tied not to their complete identity, but to a registered voter identification that protects their privacy. Interestingly, once they have concluded the registration process, users of the Direct Democracy Framework will have voted in a system that includes all the same security and verification components of a traditional representative democracy. Instead of voting for individuals, however, they have voted for direct initiatives. The Voting Management Server could also easily produce a paper ballot during the registration process that replicates the audit trail of traditional voting systems.

Once a voter is registered, digital signature technology could be used to authenticate future voting activities in future petitions. With the third step in the process completed, the relevant agencies would again have the opportunity to act upon registered direct voting or—if a further level of validation and a final confirmation vote were required—move to the forth step.

The next step would leverage the ability of the Voting Management Server to create a statistically valid sampling lottery and randomly select delegates. In this process, a limited number of the registered voters would be selected to appear as delegates to a congress to validate the registered vote. When attending the congress, which could be as short or as long as required and could involve as many locations and delegates as appropriate, the delegates would simply reiterate their voting positions. Through this process, a final and conclusive confirmation of the will of the people would be conducted. Perhaps only the largest of voting organizations, such as national or global direct democratic initiatives, would require a congress of this fashion.

Finally, we must recognize that, although a Global Direct Democracy becomes a possibility with the implementation of the Direct Democracy Framework, it will not emerge overnight. In fact, many decades may pass before the Direct Democracy Framework serves as the primary tool of government anywhere. But, even during this period, the Direct Democracy Framework will be able to provide an infrastructure that supports and enhances the democratic process throughout the world. As such, the fifth and final step of the Direct Democracy Framework—ratification—is critical. It is in this step that the parallel existence of direct democracy and representative democracy is facilitated.

During ratification the appropriate conventional government bodies and non-governmental entities would confirm the legitimacy of the initiatives sent to them through the direct process and write into law the process by which these initiatives would be enforced. Ratification might take place by individual legislative voting on each initiative, gaining sufficient momentum to warrant inclusion into law, or it might take place by constitutional process, whereby a government defines criteria such as the percentage of the voting population that has voted on an initiative, the percentage of supporting votes, and the longevity of the initiative as criteria for automated ratification.

Of course, not all of these steps are mandatory. It would depend on the particular protocols of the organization in question as to what steps were required. In the case of initiatives seeking to become global law, all five steps would likely take place.

The End User Voting Tool is the tool responsible for the first step in the Direct Democracy Framework process; the distributed voting and more importantly, is the tool that each individual user of the framework uses to create, send and view initiatives as they move through the process. It is therefore important to document the core functionality of this tool that is used to implement the Direct Democracy Framework. The following table defines those features:

Name Description Implementation Notes Create The user should be able See below flowcharts (9), Initiative to create and edit a direct (10), (11), (13), (15) democracy initiative a manner that is as intuitive and easy as composing an email then (optionally) send the initiative out to selected recipients Edit Initiative The user should be able See below flowcharts (9), to find and edit an (12), (13), (14), (15) existing direct democracy initiative a manner that is as intuitive and easy as updating a draft email then (optionally) send the initiative out to selected recipients Send Initiative The user should be able See below flowcharts (9), to find and send an (12), (13), (15) existing direct democracy initiative a manner that is as intuitive and easy as sending a draft email Vote on The user should be See below flowcharts (9), Initiative receive a sent direct

Download full PDF for full patent description/claims.




You can also Monitor Keywords and Search for tracking patents relating to this Direct democracy framework patent application.
###


Other recent patent applications listed under the agent :