Can Technology save Democracy? (part 2)
When last we spoke,
we promised the reader that there were grounds for optimism with this technology, and defined four key pillars of advancement that were critical to its success. Those pillars are: Authenticity, Transparency, Information Asymmetry, and Accountability. In this discussion, we offer technological, political, and logistical solutions to each.
Pillar #1 - Authenticity
This is the area of most concern. Any system of voting that is entirely electronic would present an enormous incentive to hackers wanting to tip the balance. The constant threat of Russian election rigging shows that serious technology needs to be brought to bear on this problem. Here are a few approaches used within industry. A successful anti-hacking strategy would likely require a combination of several of these:
The Microsoft Approach
Microsoft has made huge investments in the application of deep learning algorithms for facial recognition. Windows 10 users can now authenticate themselves by looking into a webcam when signing into their laptops. Similar technology is employed by USAA to access its banking app on smartphones. This type of technology could compare a user's face to a scanned driver license, passport, or other form of ID, validating that the user is a real person rather than a Russian bot.
The PayPal Approach
PayPal verifies users by making two small charges to a credit card or bank account. The user then logs into his banking website, reporting back to PayPal the exact amount of the charge, thus confirming that the account indeed belongs to that user. This helps PayPal authenticate the user's name and address by tying the user back to a specific bank which holds that information.
The Nextdoor.com Approach
The social media site Nextdoor.com is designed to let users send messages to members of their communities, but requires that a user verify an address when registering for an account. This would be a useful approach in confirming a user's voting district and representatives. Verification can be done in several ways, including:
Confirming the billing address associated to a user's phone number by running a cross-check with the service provider
Mailing a postcard containing a PIN code to the listed address
Verifying the address on file with the Social Security administration using the last 4 digits of a user's SSN
Checking the address on file with LexisNexis, a data aggregator service
The Apple Approach
Many iPhone users are already familiar with Apple's Touch ID service, which allows users to quickly pay for items in a store by holding the phone against a scanner while placing a thumb on the sensor. This quickly confirms the unique identifier of the iPhone along with the thumbprint, to verify that the rightful owner of the device is making the purchase. This type of biometric verification could be used each time a vote is cast, thus guaranteeing the authenticity of the voter.
The Google Approach
Google Account users can add extra layers of security using two-factor authentication. When the user logs into Gmail, she receives a text message or phone call with a unique PIN code to type into the login screen. The user can also generate a PIN with the Google Authenticator app or even use a physical security key for greater protection. Two factor authentication can also be used to verify voters in cases where biometric options are not available.
Pillar #2 - Transparency
Once a user can be authenticated with high confidence, the next step is to protect the voting process itself. It is important to know that, once a vote is cast for a particular piece of legislation, it cannot be lost, hacked, faked, or manipulated before the final vote tally. So, how can we accomplish this? One word... Blockchain.
What is Blockchain?
This site offers a detailed look into the mechanics of the blockchain, but the short answer is that it's a digital accounting ledger for recording transactions. Transactions are stored in a distributed network, rather than through a central clearinghouse, which prevents exposing a single control point to attack by hackers. Blockchain is the foundation upon which Bitcoin digital currency transactions occur. It has been operating reliably since 2009, allowing buyers and sellers to confidently believe that both parties are legitimate participants engaging in a real transaction.
Why use Blockchain?
Although the blockchain was originally developed for Bitcoin transactions, it has become clear that digital ledgers can be valuable in several other industries such as healthcare, banking, real estate, supply chain logistics, contract law, and others. A valuable extension of blockchain technology, called smart contracts, would be used to place votes onto the digital ledger. This works by creating a unique "contract" stating that a given user, represented by her particular legislator, casts a yay or nay vote on a defined piece of legislation. Along with the time of the transaction, these bits of information provide a unique identifier for this vote, which is then assigned a smart contract and listed on the blockchain. The blockchain is fully public and digitally distributed, making it nearly impossible to hack. Anyone wanting to independently verify the vote tally can easily look at the ledger to see that, for a given legislative item, the yays garnered 55% and the nays 45%, therefore the legislation passes.
Transparency vs. Privacy
We take for granted the concept of the secret ballot, but the blockchain would make all votes instantly visible. An important trade-off is made between the voter's desire to maintain privacy with that same voter's desire to have confidence that her vote was counted. Smart contracts can be modified to send some data elements, such as the name of the voter, through a cryptographic layer to add a level of privacy. However, this requires that the crypto key be managed by a trustworthy authority, which adds a level of centralization to this system which we may not want.
It is also possible that the secret ballot is overrated, given that we have become increasingly political in our social media posts. In fact, until the 20th Century, many American states actually required public voting. This let everyone see how his neighbor had cast his ballot. Would Americans be willing to return to this model in exchange for direct control of the legislative process? More thought is needed on how to strike the right balance between transparency and privacy.
Pillar #3 - Information Asymmetry
Legislative language is written for lawyers by lawyers. How is the average citizen supposed to understand the ramifications of a 500-page housing or health care bill? Who has the time to read all of that and make an informed decision?
The dirty little secret in Washington is that even our current legislators rarely read these bills prior to a vote. The provisions are often written by Congressional staffers, lobbyists, and think tanks who are meant to have deep expertise in the affected policy area, but could also be looking out for their own self-interests.
What is needed is a completely non-partisan organization to curate information about each piece of legislation, translate the legal language into plain speech, then allow the community of voters to contribute comments in a public forum. A useful example is the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia as an open-source encyclopedia. The community of users contributes the content, which has to be well-sourced and follow basic rules, but the curators ultimately determine what gets published. A similar platform could be hosted by a non-profit such as the Sunlight Foundation or even the Voting Rights Brigade <wink>.
Pillar #4 - Accountability
Once we give voters the informational and technical resources to cast an informed vote on important legislation, how do we force our Congressional representatives to vote with the majority? As of right now...we can't.
This was a problem identified by Pia Mancini when trying to roll out DemocracyOS in Buenos Aires. The established political parties have zero incentive to change the electoral mechanisms that put them into power. After all, many of their campaign contributions come from special interest groups and party leaders who will want them to line up behind certain legislation when the time comes. An aspiring politician gains power by trading his vote for seats on important subcommittees where key decisions are made, then trading those decisions for more power. The very concept of DemocracyOS is to take that power away from legislators and give it directly to the people. This would make the politician nothing more than an automaton, pulling the lever that he's told to pull by a sea of humanity on the other side of a smartphone app. Who would sign up for that?
In a stroke of brilliance, Pia realized that real disruption would require a new political party which embraced people power above self-aggrandizement. Thus, the Partido de la Red was born. This new Internet Party, as it translates to English, represents a radical departure from traditional politics. Essentially, this is a political party with no ideology, other than that the rule of the people is supreme.
Given that DemocracyOS is open-source, the technology could certainly be embraced by the Democratic and Republican establishment, but it is far more likely that a new American party would have to be built. This would be a truly technocratic party, in that the mechanism of open democracy would be the only party platform.
This would lead to a radical shift in our political dynamic. Imagine a public debate between three Congressional candidates for an open seat in the House of Representatives:
Moderator - What is your position on the topic of Syrian refugees?
Republican candidate - We should stop the flow of all refugees from Syria until a system of extreme vetting can be put into effect to protect us from terrorism.
Democratic candidate - We have a humanitarian obligation to allow these people into the country, given that they are fleeing from war and desolation.
Technocratic candidate - I have no opinion. I will vote the way the people of my district tell me to vote.
Radical, isn't it?
To Be Continued...
...in our next post, we will ask and answer an important existential question:
Are we even ready for direct democracy?
Stay tuned.