TECK: The Electoral Corruption Killer

Posted by James Bowery on Monday, 22 September 2008 17:11.

The Electoral Corruption Killer (TECK) is a publicly verifiable proxy voting system designed to stop the on-going betrayals of the public by Congress such as occurred with the 1998 expansion of H-1b visas when Congress overwhelmingly opposed the will of 82% of the public, at the behest of hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign contributions from industry lobbies.

This is a an article I published in 2004 but it is becoming more relevant with the increasing instability of the political zeitgeist. My recommendation in the present instance is that those interested in promoting the populace’s interests prevail upon existing candidates to adopt the campaign promise to vote according to the proxy votes of their constituents.

Under TECK, constituents contact their local office and, with call-back or in-person authentication, vote for bills and/or proxy their votes for bills before congress or state legislatures. Their representative is elected on the Open Proxy Party’s political platform which has one plank: Their representative will vote the way the constituents say via their open proxies.

TECK is the seed technology for what is to become the US third-party that succeeds in dramatically decentralizing, reducing and changing politics for the better:

The Open Proxy Party.

The Open Proxy Party’s honesty is assured in the most obvious manner imaginable: everyone can see how everyone is voting at any point in time. The current votes and proxies are published on a web page generated by an open-source computer program. Currently this program consists of around 120 lines of Perl code (not counting preformatted text like this) to tally and present the proxies for the public.

Electoral corruption is an opportunity for Open Proxy candidates to win against incumbents. Electoral corruption has alienated the vast majority of the voters from the political process. With foreign labor displacing hundreds of thousands of middle aged technical workers in the United States, who have now redispersed to lower-cost-of-living districts, there is a pool of potential candidates who are more than capable of operating the TECK websites, more than motivated to clean up the electoral process and more than available to work for the modest salaries paid to representatives in State legislatures. Moreover, the majority of voters are more than ready for a reform of the political process.

Installation

Just for the heck of it you might have a campaign kick-off party and invite all the un/der-employed computer people you can find to join the fun of doing the TECK installation. An under-employed live band with pot-luck can’t hurt either and will keep expenses down.

Set up a website for your future office. This website must be able to run Perl CGI scripts that require as much as a CPU second on a modern processor and 100M of RAM. This website will be used only for publishing the current votes and proxies—not for data entry.
Copy the CGI script to the CGI directory of your website.
Obtain a dedicated computer system with an amount of RAM at least equal to 32M plus 1K for each voter in your district. This system will be used only for data-entry.
Copy the CGI script(s) to the CGI directory of your data-entry system.
Make the database writable for the data-entry system: To do so, in the CGI directory where it is installed, execute the shell command: ‘touch proxy_writable’
The CGI directory must be writable by the web server because the database is automatically created and stored there.
Start entering votes and proxies for the attendees of the party, just to demonstrate how it works. (It is recommended that voter-ids be 10-digit phone numbers so they correspond to their call-back numbers.)

You may want to send your guests home with a campaign statement along the following lines:

“82% of the public opposed expansion of the H-1b visa program yet Congress voted nearly unanimously to expand the H-1b program. That they did so at the behest of hundreds of millions of dollars of political contributions from industry lobbies, shows that our so-called ‘representative democracy’ is neither representative nor democratic. People are alienated from their government. <Your name> is running for representative to change that. He will vote only the way you, his voters, tell him to vote. You may tell him either directly on a given bill or, if you prefer, you can revocably proxy your votes to others in your community (but not to <your name>). You will be able to audit how your vote is being cast by visiting his web site at <URL>. Your vote will be public so everyone can verify the honesty of the system. If <your name> fails to vote the way his constituency requires of him, then it is their civic duty to recall him as their representative.”

Running Your Campaign and Office

During the campaign simply run your office as you would during the legislative session:

Solicit and accept input from voters on how they want to vote on various bills and to whom they wish to proxy their votes. Input it to the data-entry system.
Optimize your office as necessary to secure it and speed it. An obvious suggestion is to give preference to processing easily-verified votes/proxies. For example, put up a caller-ID telephone answering computer for people to call. However, never rely on caller-ID—rely only on call-back to known phone numbers. If they leave their name, and their caller ID is a listed phone number matching their name, then process their authorizations first. Process the others as you can afford the time and resources to authenticate them. Let people know how they can help ease your timely processing of their authorizations.
Periodically (as often as you can afford given your resources) copy the proxy_data.pl file from the CGI directory on the data-entry system to a removable media (it might not fit on a floppy once a large number of constituents register their votes/proxies) and copy that copy to your website’s CGI directory. Treat your data-entry system’s web access log as your transaction log for disaster recovery purposes. This means you must periodically copy your web access log from your data-entry system to some other remote system or to a removable media for vaulted storage.

To Do

This simple script is meant as a starting point for experience-based dialogue, design and implementation of a comprehensive system. The TECK system is predicated on the existence of ample availability of technical talent that is under-employed and highly motivated to work to clean up the electoral corruption problem in the United States. As currently implemented the data-entry interface is a surrogate for what would presumably become a touch-tone interface for a phone call-in system (with call-back authentication), but that is only one of several directions the system could go. The direction it goes depends on how important features are to people actually running Open Proxy offices.

What follows are some of the more obvious improvements that could be made in a more comprehensive system without compromising the essence of the system’s security-through-public-availability:

Research on ways to use open proxies to run the Open Proxy Party itself. An example might be selecting Open Proxy candidates for a particular district from multiple options where such are available using possible synergy with techniques such as instant run-off, Condorcet and approval voting.
A publicly available CGI-based data-entry system that provides a confirmation number to be read-back and/or entered during call-back from the office. This would allow users of the public website to enter data—which would offload the work of the office substantially. Office workers would merely need to validate the caller id as a constituent of the congressman/candidate and enter the confirmation number received from that caller-id.
Automated call-back authentication to provide touch-tone data-entry, preferably for an open-source operating system such as Linux or FreeBSD.
An alternative to proxy.cgi that uses only static XML to provide the vote/proxy database to an ECMAScript embedded in an HTML page so that all processing is offloaded to the web browser. This would make it possible to download the entire database snapshot once to a browser and then allow the user to archive and/or peruse the entire proxy structure as well as tally votes with no further impact on the server. Suggested client-side ECMAScript environment: TIBET(tm). (Notice: I have a conflict of interest in this recommendation as I was involved in the early stages of the creation of TIBET(tm).)
A web service alternative to the web-based data-entry system. This web service could start the specification of a Legislative Voting Markup Language (LVML). Suggested server-side environment: Rails.
Integration of the ECMAScript (for offline-perusal) with the data-entry web service to implement a Legislative Voting Environment (LVE).
Extension of the Legislative Voting Markup Language (LVML) and creation of an associated web service that can include legislative language from a variety of legislative systems.
Inclusion of the extended LVML web service to present actual legislative language in the Legislative Voting Environment (LVE).

Credits: Support for development of The Electoral Corruption Killer came from the Randall J. Burns family. Early intellectual contributions regarding the politics of proxy voting was from David Schromm of Magic, Inc.

For those who are curious about the connection between Randy Burns and myself—it goes back to a house in Palo Alto that was occupied by us as well as Keith Henson‘s family during work for a company that acquired the source-code rights to Project Xanadu. Magic was around the corner.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by zuwr on Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:07 | #

change

“If <your name> fails to vote the way his constituency requires of him, then it is their civic duty to recall him as their representative”

“If <your name> fails to vote the way his constituency requires of him, then it is their civic duty to kill him as their representative”

Posted by zuwr on Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:02 | #

“or, if you prefer, you can revocably proxy your votes to others in your community (but not to <your name>). “

There is little to stop corruption of the proxies. If power moves to the proxies, they get corrupted. The only limitation is “to others in your community” which is a good limitation. But I can see how in the final implementation of this, those five words get removed. Imagine if Carl Pope (Sierra Club leader) became a proxy, he would vote the way that his followers wanted on environmental issues, but would sell his votes on other issues. Since the VDare article implied that Carl Pope is for sale on immigration, it is not hard to imagine he is for sell on other issues. Both my sister and my mother refused to believe that the Sierra Club was corrupt after reading the VDare article, as the wholesome image of the Sierra Club was too strong to tarnish. The Sierra Club collects licensing fees from the company that makes Clorox for letting them promote their green products (!!!). The Sierra Club can use its corporate donations to buy advertising to promote themselves to the public and collect proxy votes. The key detail is localism, but that detail can (and will!) get lost either before implementation or after implementation. You know who is the best at changing the rules of the game to suit themselves? Parasites.

I would suggest limiting proxy voting to families, neighbors, but still the problem of having the rules changed AFTER implementation remains.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:39 | #

There is little to stop corruption of the proxies.

Since the proxies are open, it is possible for interested third parties to detect when betrayals occur and notify constituents of those betrayals so they can immediately withdraw their proxies from the traitors

Again, immigration is the key issue. It will be impossible for traitors to hold proxies for more than one immigration vote.

but still the problem of having the rules changed AFTER implementation remains

Yes, of course. But at least the proxy system makes the challenge for vigilance far more manageable.

Remember nearly half of the population thinks the government is broken beyond the point that the political system can fix it.

Posted by Retew on Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:33 | #

James, first of all can I say I have a lot of respect for you. You’re obviously very intelligent (probably MENSA level from what I’ve seen of your posts) and think deeply about the future.
This suggestion sounds a lot like Tim Stryker’s “Electronic Democracy” except that it’s more pro-active - people putting forward suggestions which they want to be incorporated into polity instead of responding to the suggestions others have put forward.

I think that is certainly an improvement on what we have now; the only problem I see with it is that the people who take part in this are likely to be at the more intransigent end of each of the opinion spectra they’re concerned with.

No one’s going to wake up one morning and say, for example, “Maybe there’s a case to be made for abortion under certain circumstances but I wouldn’t want access to it to be made TOO easy so I think I’ll contact my congressman to ensure he votes as I want.” No, the people who are goiung to take advantage of this should it take place will be people with very black and white views on the issue; i.e. those who believe there should be no abortions, ever, on one hand, and those who believe there should be abortion on demand without restriction on the other, will both be heavily overrepresented in the population set of those who will contact their congressman under those circumstances. And also, it selects heavily in favour of those who have the time to take part in what is likely to be a far more demanding political process than the one we now have.

I think it’s a fair starting point for the discussion we need to have about political engagement, but not an endpoint.

Posted by melba peachtoast on Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:33 | #

MENSA level? Please. Anyone who can get into a good graduate school qualifies for MENSA. People who think of that level of IQ as conferring “elite” status are idiots. To be charitable to you , Retew, I assume you were being insulting to James on purpose.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:44 | #

I appreciate the compliment Retew, and Melba’s too. However I have to say that to a large degree I suspect that my advantage, such as it is, isn’t high IQ so much as it is lack of selective low IQ induced by certain kinds of extended phenotypic brain damage that afflict many others. In other words, I may have, due to some freak accident, escaped some of the worst consequences of profoundly brain-damaging virulence that is running amok these days. This I tend to attribute to the fact that I was brought up in a fundamentalist church by relatively intelligent and loving parents which put me in a position to confront them during adolescence with the absurdity of many of the beliefs being imposed on me, to which they responded by holding firm to their faith but recognizing at some deep, I like to think instinctive parental, level that they should not impose them further on me. This then let me develop antibodies to silly religious beliefs in general—including those governing the current zeitgeist—silly religious beliefs widely known as “humanism”, “political correctness” and/or “Holocaustianity”. I mean once one has faced the fires of Hell in order to retain one’s intellectual integrity, facing mere smears like “racist”, “anti-semite”, “sexist”, “homophobe”, etc. is really easy. Sadly the members of my cohort who grew up in less absurd, more secular and politically correct Protestant religions did not fare so well when confronted by the current theocracy’s inquisitions. Unfortunately, I did not come to understand how valuable my fundamentalist upbringing might have been to my intellectual integrity until I was in my 40’s or I would have been kinder to them in my young adulthood.

Having said that, I think you misunderstand the kind of activism that is demanded of people in the Open Proxy Party. It is far less _political_ than it is _social_—and there really is an enormous difference. The proxies one gives are most likely going to be through social connections rather than through political connections. They will be through what John Robb calls “primary loyalties”—the social networks that one falls back on if the government’s services fail the population. This if far more natural, and less of an imposition, than is running around trying to figure out who you can trust among the various “Center for…” policy groups.

Posted by Bret Ludwig on Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:28 | #

This is democracy, and democracy-direct democracy-works in (and only in) a limited number of situations.

Ours is not one of those.

The fact is, at least in the United States and indeed in most of Western Europe, excepting Switzerland-perhaps the only really successful democracy today-we need government that is more aristocratic and less democratic-provided that the aristocracy be one of quality and not one of incompetence or alien powers.

Dr. Pierce was quite right-alien control of the democratic republic by control of the mass media was and is the essential problem. His assumptions about the exact nature of the alien controllers was arguably a little naive.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:53 | #

Bret Ludwig portrays proposals such as this as “direct democracy” in contradiction to current political taxonomy which classes the proposed proxy democracy or “delegative democracy” as a kind of “indirect democracy”.

Dr. Pierce was quite right-alien control of the democratic republic by control of the mass media was and is the essential problem.

A problem I recognized in 1982 and predicted would be overcome by the internet.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:09 | #

“Dr. Pierce was quite right-alien control of the democratic republic by control of the mass media was and is the essential problem.” (—Bret Ludwig)

This is exactly correct. Control of the mass media by Jews, who see Euros as their mortal enemies and something to be weakened, demoralized, and if possible eliminated outright, is the crux of the problem. If Jews bore us no racial/ethnocultural ill will and abided by gentlemanly standards of culture, morality, honesty and other general aspects of what might be called cultural/informational “quality,” there’d be no problem with them controlling the mass media as they do. Unfortunately, the situation is the diametrical opposite: quality-wise as regards popular cultural/informational fare, whatever the Jewish controllers touch they poison, putrify, render unfit for decent human consumption.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:10 | #

Bret wrote: we need government that is more aristocratic and less democratic-provided that the aristocracy be one of quality and not one of incompetence or alien powers.

Many claim that the current elite is a “meritocracy”—which is to say an aristocracy of competency, albeit one ignorant of native vs alien distinctions.

Defining “competency” in terms other than who has the largest pile of gold is crucial to forming a new aristocracy. What is your test for competency? For that matter, what is your test for nativity?

I would claim that the proxy hierarchies that emerge under the Open Proxy Party are far closer to reestablishing proper relations between, and within, kin groups than any other comparably clear and objective proposal thus far submitted. In other words, the way it would likely turn out is that one’s primary loyalties would be reflected in the proxy structure.

Posted by zuwr on Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:02 | #

James could you provide an explanation for the failure of wikipedia to come anywhere near the truth regarding issues of race? I ask because wikipedia presents an open technical model. Yet is flawed. What would you do differently…demand real names when people edit? demand disclosure of location?
How will someone with an average IQ know where to place their proxy considering their susceptibility to advertising? Proxy collectors merely need to refine their marketing to collect a majority of proxies. Bills will be crafted to be confusing enough that someone with average IQ can not figure out if the bill is good or bad.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:33 | #

It would be most interesting to try out an open proxy system for editorial authority in a wikipedia type system.

Instead of “bill numbers” there would be specific “edits” consisting of a set of changes grouped together in an atomic action. Everything else could pretty much work the same, including call-back verifications. If you don’t have a listed number, you don’t get a vote, although you might be able to submit an edit.

As for advertising, its really decreasing in its power compared to the internet but even assuming it doesn’t decrease in relative power, the immediate impact of having open proxies is that the advertisers have to be careful of their promises both implicit and explicit. Again, I have to keep coming back to immigration: Can you imagine what would happen to the current gag-rule on immigration policy if people could be informed by ANYONE in their primary loyalty group that “You know so-and-so you gave your proxy to? He threw his proxies to an AMNESTY supporter!”

Posted by war gold on Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:40 | #

Thanks for sharing such a informative article with us. I really like it very much. Keep it up. Nicely done and well structure.

Posted by zuwr on Mon, 29 Sep 2008 02:02 | #

James,

A technical question: Can proxies split their votes on an issue? Suppose, I will vote like a social conservative on all issues except abortion. On abortion, I will vote to keep it legal. Suppose, I collect proxies from social conservatives who agree with me on all issues except they are opposed to abortion in all circumstances. Can I use my own vote to keep it legal and then proxy vote the social conservatives to oppose abortion?
If the answer is yes, then I see this as a way for corruption to enter the system. Because the proxy tries to avoid acting in an offensive manner on sensitive issues, thus leaving the proxy feel to act how he pleases on other issues where no one is paying attention.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 29 Sep 2008 03:13 | #

The short answer is “no”.

A voter’s choice becomes the choice of his proxied votes.

His choices are:

1) Abstain on a bill
2) Vote yes on a bill
3) Vote no on a bill.
4) Proxy his vote to a prioritized list of other voters on a bill.
5) Proxy his vote to a prioritized list of other voters for all other bills.

The way the prioritized list works is each voter on the list is tried in order until one is found that results in a vote other than “Absent”.

Posted by warhammer gold on Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:44 | #

Posted by warhammer on Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:13 | #

The proxy hierarchies that emerge under the Open Proxy Party are far closer to reestablishing proper relations between, and within, kin groups than any other comparably clear and objective proposal thus far submitted.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 03 Aug 2016 02:26 | #

See Let’s Make a Political Party Out of Software

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 03 Aug 2016 05:20 | #

Using the same app for party-building could also be a good idea. It’s a great way to connect partner sites, handle issue-discovery and call-to-action, create networks of interaction that are sustainable, gain ability to directly target local communities even in remote areas, and engage in participatory activities such as story-telling and ‘consciousness raising’.

Traditional political parties would find themselves on the back foot, as most of them have yet to even imagine such a move.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 19:33 | #

A (timely) video demonstrating TECK’s user interface.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments