Worldwide voting is baked into the protocol, it’s one of the Maidsafe patented inventions.
The Choice Architects will be drooling over this, so it’s incumbent on us to know something about these Behavioural Scientists.
Choice architecture/Libertarian Paternalism is a simple concept of ‘we know what’s best for you’ They decide the menu and default choices…you are being ‘Nudged’
Nudging can be open, like in the video at the end or sneaky…like these:
Example 1/ Problem: We don’t have enough organ donors Solution: Make the default on drivers licences to ‘opted in’
Example 2/ Problem: People wont invest money in the economy, their hoarding Solution: Set the default on retirement accounts, to a higher risk level…thereby forcing money into stocks and risk assets
Example 3/ Problem: Too much money being spent on end of life care Solution: Set default to ‘do not resuscitate’
You get the drift…a raft of options set to a desired outcome. If you don’t look you wont notice. Like most things it can be used for good or nefarious reasons
So we look at voting on something…you can bet the choice architects are going to set the options to herd the masses to the desired outcome.
Example 4/ Scenario: We are having a vote for a colour scheme, the choices are red, blue, white, yellow, green My choice is a frequency outside of the visible spectrum…crazy, but that’s the way I operate, because I’m unique.
My choice wont get up, because it’s not an option and even if it was…of course it would still not get up…but I was able to express myself and others might be inspired to think outside a set choice menu also…bad computer.
This architecture is right through the whole of society and baked into ‘democracy’
So will this Maidsafe voting system scale…inwards.
If were stuck for the time being with this pyramidal system of governance…I want the ability to choose my neighbour as the capstone.
Wait a minute…I don’t know my neighbour! Best get out and get to know the people in my street, reach a consensus to build a menu of choices for my street.
Street by street, town by town, council by council.
Builders! make it scale…inwards and get creative…encourage imagination.
Nudge, nudge,nudge your being nudged
From the maidsafe patent:
Distributed Controlled Voting
According to a related aspect of this invention, to further manage the system there has to be a level of control as well as distribution to enable all users to access it at any time. The distribution of the votes is controlled as system messages and stored for users using the messenger system described earlier.
The main issue with a system such as this would be ‘what’ is voted on and ‘who’ poses the votes and words polls. This is key to the fairness and clarity of the system and process. This voting system will preferably always have a ‘not enough information’ selection to provide a route by which users are able to access information so that they are well informed before making any decision.
The system will require a group of individuals, who are preferably voted into office by the public as the policyholders/trustees of the voting system. This group will be known by their public ID and use their public ID to authenticate and publish a poll. This group will preferably be voted into office for a term and may be removed at any time via a consensus of the voting public. For this reason there will be continual polls on line which reflect how well the policyholders are doing as a group and preferably individually as well.
According to a related aspect of this invention, users of the system will input to the larger issues on the system. Macro management should be carried out via the policyholders of the system, whom as mentioned previously may be voted in or out at any time, however larger issues should be left to the users. These issues can preferably be what licenses are used, costs of systems, dissemination of charitable contributions, provision to humanitarian and scientific projects of virtual computing resources on large scales etc.
To achieve this, preferably a system message will be sent out, where it is not presented as a message but as a vote. This should show up in the users voting section of the system. User private IDs will be required to act on this vote and they can make their decision.
There will be appeals on these votes when it would be apparent that conclusion of the vote is dangerous to either a small community or the system as a whole. Users will have an option of continuing with the vote and potential damage but essentially the user will decide and that will be final. Preferably this system does not have a block vote or any other system which rates one individual over another at any time or provides an advantage in any other way. This requires no ability to allow veto on any decision or casting of votes by proxy so that the authenticated user’s decision is seen as properly recorded and final.
According to a related aspect of this invention, a system of perpetual data, self encrypting files and data mapping will allow a global anonymous backup and restore system for data to exist. This system can be constructed from the previous discussions where data may be made perpetual on a network and anonymously shared to prevent duplication. This together with the ability to check, manipulate and maintain revision control over files adds the capability of a ‘time machine’ type environment where data may be time stamped on backup.
This allows a system to rebuild a user’s data set as it was at any time in history since using maidsafe.net or similar technologies. This may form a defence at times where in cases like prior art enquiries, insider dealing etc. is being considered, as the system is secure and validated by many other nodes etc. It can therefore be shown what knowledge (at least from the point of view of owning the data pertaining to a subject,) anyone had of certain circumstances.
According to a related aspect of this invention, preferably using aspect(s) previously defined or any that may improve this situation. Taking distributed authentication, backup and restore along with data map sharing; the system can add to this the ability for granular access controls. In this case a node entering the network will request an authenticator to authorise its access. In this case the authenticator will be a manager or equivalent in an organisation (whether matrix managed or traditional pyramid). This authorisation will tie the public ID of the authoriser to the system as having access to this node’s data and any other authorisations they make (in an authorisation chain).
This allows an environment of distributed secure backup, restore and sharing in a corporate or otherwise private environment.
According to a related aspect of this invention, all of the capabilities described here with the exception of the above will ensure that a network of nodes can be created, in which users have security privacy and freedom to operate.
These nodes will have refutable IDs (MAID, PMID etc.) as well as non refutable IDs (MPID) for different purposes, just as in human life in general there is time to be identified and times when it is just best not to be.
According to a related aspect of this invention, adding the ability of non refutable messaging allows users to not only communicate genuinely and securely but also the ability to communicate under contracted terms. This allows for the implementation of legally kept trade secrets (as implied with NDA agreements etc.) plus many more contracted communications. This will hopefully lessen the burden on legal issues such as litigation etc.
According to a related aspect of this invention, adding the ability to create two voting systems, anonymous and non-anonymous, allows the system to provide a mechanism for instant democracy. This is achieved by allowing a voting panel in a user’s account that is constantly updated with issues regarding the system and it’s improvements initially. These votes will be anonymous.
In another anonymous voting scenario users may continually vote on certain subjects (as in a running poll) these subjects could be the leaders of boards etc.
In a non anonymous voting scenario it may be there’s groups of identified people (via their MPID) who have a common grouping such as a charity or similar and they may require certain people to vote on certain matters and be recognised. This is where the MPID is used for voting