Objective: To empower citizens with the ability to directly influence the allocation of their tax dollars through a transparent, secure, and verifiable blockchain voting system, ensuring that public funds are used in alignment with community priorities and values.
Introduction: The current system of tax allocation lacks direct accountability and often does not reflect the preferences of individual taxpayers. By introducing a blockchain-based voting system for tax allocation, we aim to:
Enhance Transparency: Every vote and allocation would be recorded on a blockchain, providing a tamper-proof ledger of decisions.
Increase Accountability: Funds are directed explicitly based on voter preference, with mechanisms for citizens to audit and oversee fund utilization.
Promote Engagement: Encourage higher voter participation by allowing citizens to vote from the comfort of their homes or public government facilities on how their taxes should be spent.
System Overview:
Blockchain Technology: Utilization of blockchain for its security, transparency, and immutability features. Each vote is a transaction on the blockchain, ensuring each voteās integrity.
Voter Verification:
Multi-factor Authentication (MFA):
Government ID Verification: Verification through existing government databases or digital ID systems.
Physical Token: A unique token sent to the voterās registered address or another form of physical verification.
Voting Process:
Tax Allocation Referendum: Annually, or as deemed necessary, referendums are held where citizens can vote on categories where they would like their tax contributions to be directed.
Voting Portal: A secure online platform where verified citizens can log in, review the current options for funding (e.g., infrastructure, education, health, defense), and allocate their tax contributions.
Vote Submission: Through smart contracts, votes are cast, automatically updating the blockchain.
Examples of Programs to be voted on:
Public Safety and Justice
Police Departments - Funding for salaries, equipment, training, and operations.
Fire Departments - Equipment, training, salaries, and emergency response services.
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) - Funding for ambulance services and emergency medical care.
Courts - Judicial system operations, including judges, court staff, public defenders, and prosecutors.
Corrections - Prisons, jails, probation, and parole services.
Public Infrastructure
Roads and Highways - Construction, maintenance, and repair of transportation networks.
Bridges, Tunnels, and Public Transport - Including subways, buses, and light rail systems.
Water Treatment and Supply - Systems for clean water distribution and sewage treatment.
Public Parks - Development and maintenance of parks, playgrounds, and recreational facilities.
Public Buildings - Maintenance and operation of government buildings like schools, libraries, and town halls.
Education
Public Schools - Teachersā salaries, school building maintenance, textbooks, and educational programs.
Higher Education - Subsidies for universities, student loans, and grants.
Vocational Training - Programs for skill development and workforce readiness.
Health and Welfare
Public Health Services - Vaccination programs, health inspections, and emergency health preparedness.
Healthcare for Veterans - Medical care and benefits for military veterans.
Social Services - Child welfare, food assistance programs (like SNAP), and unemployment benefits.
Healthcare Programs - Medicare, Medicaid, and other health insurance programs for the elderly, disabled, and low-income individuals.
Social Security
Retirement Benefits - Social Security payments for retirees.
Disability Benefits - Income support for those unable to work due to disability.
Environment
Environmental Protection - Conservation, pollution control, and natural resource management.
Climate Change Initiatives - Funding for renewable energy projects, climate research, and mitigation strategies.
Culture and Arts
Libraries - Operation and maintenance of public libraries.
Museums and Cultural Centers - Support for arts, culture, and historical preservation.
Public Broadcasting - Funding for entities like PBS and NPR.
Economic Development
Small Business Support - Grants, loans, and programs to foster small business growth.
Agricultural Programs - Subsidies, research, and support for farmers.
Job Training Programs - Initiatives to train workers for high-demand industries.
Defense and Homeland Security
Military - Salaries, equipment, research, and operations of the armed forces.
Homeland Security - Border security, cybersecurity, and domestic anti-terrorism efforts.
Housing and Urban Development
Public Housing - Construction and maintenance of low-income housing.
Housing Assistance - Vouchers and benefits to help individuals afford housing.
Science and Technology
Research Grants - Funding for scientific research in universities and labs.
Space Exploration - Programs like NASA.
International Affairs
Foreign Aid - Economic and military aid to other countries.
Diplomatic Services - Funding for embassies and diplomats.
Miscellaneous
Debt Service - Payments on national debt.
General Government Operations - Everything from the White House operations to local government functions.
Audit and Oversight:
Real-Time Tracking: Citizens can view in real-time how their taxes are being allocated through a public blockchain explorer.
Annual Audit Reports: Independent audits would be conducted on how funds were utilized, with results made available on the blockchain for public review.
Feedback Mechanism: A system for citizens to report discrepancies or suggest improvements, directly influencing future allocations or adjustments.
Implementation Steps:
Legislation and Policy:
Amend current tax laws to accommodate this new system of direct citizen allocation.
Establish guidelines for what can be voted on, ensuring critical services are not left unfunded due to lack of consensus.
Technology Development:
Partner with blockchain experts to develop a secure, scalable voting platform.
Implement end-to-end encryption, anonymity features for voting (to protect voter privacy), while maintaining verifiable records.
Public Education and Engagement:
Campaigns to educate citizens on how to use the platform, the impact of their vote, and the importance of participating in tax allocation.
Workshops and digital literacy programs to ensure every citizen can participate effectively.
Pilot Programs:
Begin with small municipalities or specific sectors (like education or local infrastructure) to test and refine the system before national rollout.
Benefits:
Direct Impact: Citizens see tangible results from their tax contributions, potentially leading to better-maintained infrastructure or enhanced public services as per their collective decision.
Reduced Political Manipulation: By decentralizing decision-making, this system reduces the ability for funds to be misallocated due to political agendas.
Increased Civic Engagement: Likely to increase voter turnout and public interest in civic duties due to the direct impact of voting.
Voting for Tax Allocation
If you choose not to participate in the annual tax allocation referendum, your tax contributions will be automatically distributed evenly across all eligible programs. This ensures that even without an active vote, your taxes still contribute to a balanced support of community services, from public safety and infrastructure to education and healthcare. Remember, your vote is your voice in deciding where your money makes the most difference.
Challenges and Considerations:
Security: Ensuring the voting system is hack-proof and maintaining voter anonymity while allowing for audit trails.
Legal Framework: Redefining fiscal responsibilities and ensuring critical services are maintained.
Public Trust: Overcoming skepticism about digital voting systems and ensuring the integrity of the process.
Conclusion: This blockchain-based referendum system for tax allocation could revolutionize how democracy functions at the fiscal level, promoting a government that truly reflects the will of its people. By investing in this system, we aim to foster a community where the collective fiscal decisions result in visible, beneficial outcomes, like the exemplary infrastructure proposed in your scenario.
Next Steps:
Legislative Proposal: Drafting and pushing for legislative changes.
Feasibility Study: Conducting studies to evaluate technological, legal, and social feasibility.
Stakeholder Engagement: Engaging with government bodies, tech experts, and the public to refine and implement the proposal.
This is an intriguing/compelling idea youāve generated from my position to allow conscientious objection to tax misappropriation by way of sending bombs to nation-states found guilty of war crimes. This position has been introduced in Congress many times but has been summarily ignored. I firmly believe that using taxes to fund bombing innocent civilians is an egregious violation of the laws of both god and man and violates American religious rights for both the 1st amendment and the ICCPR., so itās imperative that this changes - especially now considering how out-of-touch foreign policy idealogues are behaving and the flagrant disregard for both the laws of war and fundamental human rights laws which produces more enemies and increases the threat to our national security interests.
All that aside, I think that this sort of solution could also apply to voting in elections in general as well, instead of just a solution for taxes. I also see the potential for blockchain in transparency and accountability concerning adverse event reporting which Iāve sought to cover in the PATA Act to address the malfeasance and fraud inherent in the only industry being granted wide sweeping and unjust immunity by the government during our lifetime (huge dereliction of duty of the government to protect itās people, IMHO).
Anyhow, this has my vote, as our systems in many ways are antiquated. The tax law was passed a little over 100 years ago, and it is not adequate considering all the advancements in civilization. I would surmise a great many things could be accomplished with this form of technology, but it has its own set of unique challenges. I recall reading somewhere that the Trump administration was going to lower taxes in place of tariffs to offset, so thatās a compounding factor.
Other areas of interest for blockchain as record keeping would be in consideration of FOIA with regard to government accounting financially, as well as operationally.
You know, even though we think of paper ballots as super old-school and secure, theyāre not immune to some sneaky business. If the folks counting or handling the ballots get a bit too creative or decide to play fast and loose with the rules, things can get iffy. They could just decide to āloseā some ballots here, add a few there, or even just count the votes the way they want. And if the people checking everything are in on it, or if thereās no real check on them, itās like giving a fox the key to the henhouse. Plus, with all the digital scanning that happens these days, if someone messes with the software, the paper trail might as well be invisible if no oneās double-checking the counts manually. Just goes to show, nothingās foolproof, not even the good olā paper ballot. In the case of the block chain we may have something a little more robust to work with.
Yes, I recall court testimony where Diebold machine engineers were called in to fix machines if the votes coming in were favoring one candidate over the other and that they had express orders to go in and change the machines to a 51 to 49 split in favor of the other candidate, so yes, people tend to skirt the rules whether paper or digital. So, if blockchain can be robust enough to record each vote without any fraudulent behavior to skew the results, that would be a better system.
Based on previous block chain reports of the ones used in bitcoin it seems that its never been hacked ever. But I dont know. Its worth looking into it at least.
The underlying problem I see with these proposals is that they always strike me as a desire for Direct Democracy within a system that is designed as a Republic.
And if you consider the bad votes that can be made by people even in our Republican system of government, I see the idea of āWe can fix our problems through direct democracyā to be wishful thinking that is ultimately doomed to disappointing failure.
In a sense the system as it sits already works as a direct democracy. A majority elects a representative and this representative legislates on behalf of the majority that elected him.
This proposal seeks to give more power to choose what is to be funded with our tax dollars. It doesnāt change our representative republic, if anything it just forces our representatives to do our bidding and manage programs according to the needs of their constituents.
If a majority of your constituents believe you should vote to do X thing on behalf of them, then thatās your job to make it happen.
And giving the power to the people to fund exactly what programs they want funded is a safety net that ensures JUST THAT.
That no elected representative or public servant has the ability to work against your interests.
In a way our system already operates within a direct democracy system to elect our representatives.
Thereās plenty examples of states with direct democracy processes such as referendum. Here in Colorado we can vote on measures and specific initiatives. Yet weāre still a republic at the end of the day with elected representatives.
In my view, the existence of referenda, initiative, and other ballot measures is a symptom of a larger problem: Our elected representatives are not as representative of us as they could be.
The whole point of a republic is we donāt have to all meet up and vote on issues. The legislative body is supposed to be a model of us in miniature, so it can make the decisions we would make if we had the time to sit down and fully study them, and negotiate with each other on behalf of our own personal interest. Ideally we would not vote on ballot measures to begin with; it risks making decisions based more on emotion than reason, and a disregard for the interests of other people. We should be putting decisions to a legislative body because they have the time to study the issues and try to balance the interests of voters.
By no means am I saying weāve got this perfectly figured out - we certainly have many areas we could improve. But we should try to avoid putting policy decisions to a public vote. The benefits are not worth the risks.
I believe this makes sense in an era where information is not as widely avaliable as it is today thanks to the internet.
The voter is far more informed about general bills and votes by their representatives than before.
But now their representatives are potentially being lobbied and paid for by corporations and foreign nations.
So we canāt continue to trust that an elected representative will execute the will of their constituents if theyāre immediately bought and paid for by AIPAC and proceed to vote against the interests of his people.
I understand how the system is supposed to be. But we need to add safety mechanisms into it because of these recent technological advancements and potential for obvious corruption.
And I believe just as referendum works, i should be able to choose where my taxes end up. That way a country not wanting to fund illegal immigration can severely cut funding for it or foreign aid at the root.
Based on the way youāve mentioned foreign aid, Iām under the impression youāre asking for a system where each selected area votes for āhereās where the people of this county wants its tax dollars to goā.
Which, if Iām understanding that correctly, just makes this proposal all the more unwieldy.
Our representatives listening to lobbyists more than us is a clear indication our methods of selecting and keeping them accountable are seriously lacking. I understand the allure of direct democracy, but the rational approach is to get control of our representatives and not let the system slip.
That said, I agree ballot measures are intended as a safety mechanism. They are not supposed to be frequently used. And thatās where I have to disagree with the main proposal; it elevates a mechanism that should be used sparingly to standard practice.
Relating to participatory budgeting by citizens: The idea rattling inside my head right now is to audit the budget with a citizensā assembly. Basically, youād call together a large jury of citizens, and they could make cuts to the budget with a 60% vote. The point is they donāt have to think about making policy, only make sure there are no glaring issues with corruption or wastefulness.
I appreciate this insight brother. I agree, if we can figure out how to ensure representatives actually show up to represent our interests then thereās no need for any of this.