For all its flaws the election in the USA has one great point, the whole world talks about it, or at least the English speaking world. I’m a Brit - well actually I am part of the Yorkshire republic, but that is another story - so I don’t get a say in the November the 4th election, however most of these problems apply to Britain as well. There is a lot of hope being placed in Obama, I’m hopeful he is elected and it seems near certain that he will be, but until he walks his talk and starts to effect real change I will remain a cautious supporter. Here are the top 10 things I hope Obama sorts out in the next four years. It’s a tough target, I’d like to make it tougher, but it’s unrealistic as it is, I’ll be impressed if he just gets a few of these sorted out. These are not necessarily exactly what he has stated he will do, but I think he is largely moving in this direction.

1. Political process.
   a) Voting fraud. Corruption is a bit like bacteria, provide an environment for it and soon enough it will be colonized. Regardless of whether or not the situation with electronic voting machines has already swung elections, there is a ripe environment for corruption and it needs cleaning up. All voting equipment should be made using open source hardware and software with transparent auditing to prevent tampering.  A more sophisticated electronic solution could be developed that is secure and anonymous and verifiable, however this would be a bigger task. Please at least stop up the leaks. In Britain we have a similar problem with postal voting, but the situation is not as dire; still, there are so many ways we could use modern technology to shore up the security of the vote. (I’ve written about it myself, and again)
   b) Lobbying. We have our own problems with money corrupting and biasing government process, as the current Mandelson/Osborne situation demonstrates once again. However in the USA, it seems even worse with the government being run by commercial interests taking public office. Bush/Chaney and the oil industry having been a great example but the current obvious conflict of interest lies in Paulson working for the treasury bailing out the very company (Goldman Sachs) he used to work for. There needs to be a much stronger separation between business and state in a working democracy, as there is an obvious conflict of interest that encourages corruption.
2. Economy
   Lets face it, it’s shot to pieces. I can see two main reasons for this shoddy state of affairs. Firstly a lack of sophisticated (not expensive) regulation, that has allowed unrealistic speculation to bloom to gigantic bubble proportions - and then *!pop!*. However this is simply a problem within the current economic paradigm, under which there is a greater problem of how the free-market externalizes the waste and resource streams, causing them to drop off the radar and cause all sorts of major problems such as peak oil and global warming. The best solution I have found to this problem is to move to a steady state economy, where instead of incentivizing more and more resource use, we incentivize more sophisticated usefulness of a fixed resource base. The USA would benefit from this as they have no chance of competing with Asias in product economy - they have too many people who will do manual work for a lot less than the average American. A steady state economy would play to the strengths of the USA ( and the east would do well from it as well). The problem would be convincing the world of this. Who better than the USA, they would need to be a key player in re-writing the rule book for the WTO, IMF and international trade in general. (I think my hopes for Obama to do this are ambitious in the extreame, I put it here because I dearly hope he does.)
3. Media
   A free media is central to a working democracy. ‘Free’ means that the general public have a chance to say what they want about whatever they want to anyone who will listen. Media is power, if it is monopolised in too few hands it has no chance, especially if that monopolised media is presented as fair and balanced when it is clearly not. There are plenty of accusations around of the media twisting stories to gain maximum viewers, thereby gaining the highest ad revenue. The Internet has been the saving grace of current times but steps need to be taken to ensure the freedom of the traditional press. Essentially they need demonopolising, currently just six corporations own most of the media in the USA. In addition, the freedom of the interenet needs to be preserved, net nuetrality and freedom of speech must be preserved. Australia has recently installed a system not all that dissimilar from the great firewall of China, this needs to be stopped.
4. Climate crisis
   This item is really at the top of my list of priorities, if we can’t stop it, then it will cause utter chaos with hundreds of millions, if not billions, of refugees. The only reason it is number 4 is because without action on the first three items I don’t think we have a chance of tackling this one, moving to a steady state economy is a particularly important part of the solution to global warming as it would inherently place ecological limits on all pollutants. We need to do much more than this though. We need to incentivize new technology on every front possible and at the same time transform the way we live our lives so that we are no longer a burden to the eco system.  This is doable, it is only the lack of will, both public and political that is preventing us from tackling this.
5. Energy
   Most of our energy is generated from non renewable resources - fossil fuels, not only is this adding to the climate crisis but many of these fossil fuels are nearing the peak of production - they are reaching the point of maximum production capacity, in some cases because the resource is severely depleted and in others because although there are abundant remaining resources they are energetically and economically too expensive to utilize. The renewable energy sector needs to be incentivized and invested in far more than it is now - in both research and deployment.
6. Education
   Education in the UK is in a terrible state, but from all I read on the internet, it is worse in the USA. The essential problem is that when you judge education achievement on simple tests rather than incentivizing education it incentivizes students passing the test and schools corrupting the process to do better in league tables. It has resulted in kids today being significantly less clever than those from before. A more sophisticated methodology of judging education success needs to be employed, but this only the start of the problem. The educational establishment tends to teach kids what to think rather than teach processes of thinking that lead to creative individuals. A bunch of robots is the last thing we need, especially in a steady state economy, we need to revitalise creative exploration, not just in the arts but in the sciences as well.  Further more, critical to our society is development of people with values that can push society forwards. At present society is centralised on rational/reductionist values and these are precisely the values that ignores the waste and resource streams, we need to move forwards to create a society that has more pluralistic/relativistic values, education needs to be rebuilt around developing these values.
7. Health
   This problem is very different in the UK, but the solution is essentially the same. People can not help the lives they are born to, but they can help how they look after themselves. We need to incentivize people to look after themselves at the same time as providing health care for issues beyond peoples control. Emergencies should be free with no questions asked. For illness, a more complex approach, where self inflicted harm through over eating, smoking etc is dealt with differently - not just ignored as that does not solve the problem in society. There also needs to be clear and fair limits on the budget for treating illness.
   The relationship between pharmaceutical companies and health care need to be re-thought. There is a clear conflict of interest that invites corruption: It makes better financial sense to develop medicines that keep people coming back for more than medicines that cure everything quickly and cheaply. We need to develop a system that changes this and incentives not just the health of the patient but the quality of life. In addition, non pharmaceutical approaches need to be more thoroughly researched and where there is good evidence they need to be used. E.G. A paper has recently been published showing that the Alexander Technique is a very effective treatment for chronic back pain. The Alexander Technique has been around for over a hundred years, yet it is only now that this has been confirmed; this happens because there is no control over teaching the Alexander Technique, no patents or copyrights and therefore the market economy does not incentivise its investigation.
8. Technology
   I think that one of the greatest problems that the current economic paradigm has brought is still not really recognized. It is very centered on progress in the present and does not really care about problems it creates for the future.  Global warming is one very good end result, but there could be many more subtle effects that we are just not noticing. Most of the systems that our society depends upon, from the eco system to the complexity of our own bodies are chaotic systems, and these systems are all interlinked. It is impossible to predict all the interactions in a chaotic system, it is like predicting if it will rain on my house one year from now; it is mathematically impossible. Yet we are developing new technologies at breakneck speed. I am not anti technology, I just see a problem that needs to be adjusted for. One solution would be an institution, with the necessary funding and power to take action, to constantly look for unexpected interactions in the technologies we develop through modeling and statistical correlation. I want us to take command of our genetic heritage, to create nano machines that can cure any illness, but we need to get there safely and the free market does not incentivize this, it is just too short sighted.
   In addition we desperately need a rethink of intellectual property laws. We need to think up a way of incentivising research and development without locking the insights of that development down. A steady state economy goes a long way towards this.
9. Military
   Just get out. Out of everywhere. Stop being the bully boy.
   I know; who are we to talk. We need to stop being your sycophant.
10. Global peace. Yeah, a tough order, but Obama is the man, lets give it a chance.

I wrote a post a while ago about upgrading democracy. Reading it back now, it is rather wordy and my ideas have moved on a little; I think it is more important to find solutions that only a little ahead of where we are now because they are easier to implement. So here is a quick update.

The problem:
Democracy, as it is now, does not really represent the people and it is open to corruption in many ways.

The solution:
Use technology to enable the public to have a greater say.

The details:
People continue to vote in general elections as they do now. However when attending the polling station they have the option to sign up to an electronic platform.

Government continues to operate as it does, except rather than each MP getting one vote, they get a vote proportional to the number of people in their constituency. E.G. if there are 40,000,000 eligible voters and 645 MPs then each MP will have approximately 62015 votes.

People who have registered for the electronic platform can change who represents them to be any of the sitting MPs. They can do this as often as they want. When this happens, their current MP losses one vote and their new one gains one.

Why this is better:
The public can decide who represents them the most accurately, without the public having to get involved in the real nitty gritty of policy making.  It does this without disenfranchising those who are not tech savy, or wanting to play a more active role in government.

Concerns:
Have to make sure the system is secure. Suggest an open source software and hardware solution to enable this.
Have to make sure the website is very easy to use.

Next step:
Once this system was settled in then it may need developing so that the public have more say in what motions are put before parliament in the first place.

Time for a bit of fun. I had a crazy 3am idea this morning.

I had just woken up after a nightmare where I was being tortured by having my legs twisted off (Which is what you get for reading The Atrocity Archives by Charles Stross before going to sleep.) when I had this crazy idea.

Why can’t we build a space elevator using hot air balloons - or helium, whatever is cheaper/more ecologically sound. kinda steam punk I know, but why not.

As I lay there for two hours the idea evolved in my head. It couldn’t work on the same principles as a nano wire elevator… here’s a drawing of how I thought it might work (click for large version). The biggest problem I can see would be cross winds blowing it off course.

Someone please put me right with the physics and tell me it can’t be done.

I am planning[1] on this being the first of several posts taking a critical look at Graves’ research into E-C theory, commonly known as Spiral Dynamics. While I think that Graves’ research methodology was superb for the era it was performed. In a time when most psychological researchers developed a theory and then tried to fit evidence to that theory, Graves designed an experiment that removed his ideas from the research and only developed the theory after many years of research [2]. However there are known flaws[3] and further academic research (and peer review) would be wonderful.

The issue I want to look at today is one that lies at the heart of his theory.  Graves developed his theory after gathering written descriptions from freshman students about their ‘conception(s) of psychologically mature human behavior’ [4]. He then has a second group of students categorise these conceptions. This on its own is a wonderful idea; rather than try to impose his own order on the conceptions, he had many different groups of students categorise them for him. The categorisations that were developed were markedly similar, although there was some variation.[5]

My criticism is that because the students needed to be graded and in order to incentivise his students to be honest he developed a set of criteria that would be used for grading.[6]

1. Breadth of coverage of human behaviour
2. Concurrence with established psychological fact.
3. The internal consistency of the conception.
4. The applicability of the conception.

I can see issues with several of these criteria but today I am going to concentrate on just the third.

Graves states that 60% of conceptions where considered to be consistent by the judges [7], but by incentivising consistency he may well have inadvertently introduced artificial consistency into the conceptions where there is none, or at least biased the degree of consistency. I can think of reasons for Graves wanting to keep the conceptions consistent. For example, this allowed him to ask his students for an updated conception at the end of the course and use this data to work out how conceptions evolve over time, this is very useful knowledge, but it may be the case that peoples conceptions are rarely consistent.

Further to this. Whilst using students to create the categorisation prevented Graves from artificially creating categories, it did not address the potential problem of biases within human perception of others values. In other words, the conceptions that are identified could be artificial constructions of human perception and language rather than points that are inherently unique.

Several vectors were identified when peoples conceptions evolve that I do not think are effected by this issue. (although further research would be needed to confirm this.)

1. Increased evolution brings an increasing complexity of conception.[8]
2. Increased evolution brings a greater degree of behavioural freedom.[9]

Other issues are, I think, more likely to be effected.  For example, that conceptions, when consistent, oscillate from ‘I’ systems, with an internal sense of authority and an external locus of control to ‘we’ systems with an external sense of authority and an internal locus of control.  When the conceptions are inconsistent this may no longer be the case. Inconsistent conceptions may not centralise on an ‘I’ or a ‘we’ state in the same place as the consistent conceptions when looking at the complexity of conception or the degree of behavioural freedom.

This brings into doubt the even, ordered nature of the way peoples conceptions evolve. For example, in not looking at the inconsistent conceptions, he may be missing conceptions that are not easily categorisable because they consist of a mix of easily identifiable conceptions. For example, someone might express a mixture of DQ and FS (pairing in Cowan and Todorovic language) with low ER and yet have the behavioural freedom and complexity of conception of someone with a consistent ER conception.

Further study would be needed to confirm this and unfortunately Graves’ many years of raw data has been lost so it would need to be done from scratch. Some longitudinal studies are ideally needed to identify how all peoples conceptions evolve and not just the consistent conceptions. A good starting point would be to identify an up to date methodology for identifying the degree of complexity of the conceptions and the degree of behavioural freedom expressed by people.

Notes

1. I say ‘planning’ because I have about ten ideas for posts for every one I have time to write.

2. The Never Ending Quest. Clare W Graves. pp38-39.

3. We looked at several on Cowan and Tordovics SD1 and SD2 course. In particualar the poor sample that 1950s American colledge students made.

4. The Never Ending Quest. Clare W Graves. pp44-46

5. The Never Ending Quest. Clare W Graves. p47

6. The Never Ending Quest. Clare W Graves. p45

7. The Never Ending Quest. Clare W Graves. pp56, 92

8. cognitive complexity - Graves used a modified version of George Kelly’s REP test. http://www.clarewgraves.com/research_content/CG&OJH/2.html

9. behavioural freedom was measured by the student judges - The Never Ending Quest. Clare W Graves. p114

I am not an expert in economics, yet I don’t think I need to be to explore ideas that could create a stable economic system. Why? Because I do have a good understanding of human values and what kind of systems could encourage those who do have the economic skills to create an economic system that could prevent recessions and depressions. Below I outline one possible way it could be done.

Premises
I will make a few simple premises about the economic system and work from there.

1.  The free market ideal as initially expressed by Adam Smith removed state control of the supply and demand of goods by allowing individuals to compete with each other to provide the best deal. This incentivises efficiency and a reduction in cost.  While we do not have an ideal free market, this mechanism is a large part of the modern economy.

2.  A free market only works if monopoly is prevented, as monopoly of a market area removes the competitive element, thus causing the economy to become inefficient. The government regulates the commercial sector to prevent monopoly, however this is not very effective for several reasons.
a) Democratic government is only in office for several years and therefore is incentivised on rigging the economy for short term gain that lasts the duration of the current government and does not work to prevent long term economic problems such as depressions.
b) Government is corruptible by various third party interests, such as the politicians themselves and the commercial sector though various forms of lobbying, both legal and illegal. This provides a disincentive for effective (not necessarily expensive) regulation of monopoly.

3.  The free market economic system works through the incetivisation of greed. Thus it is not in the interest of the most successful commercial entities to care about how externalisation of costs effects other people or the environment in any way other than how it effects their bottom line.  EG, if a commercial entities business involves customers who care about the environment then it is in their interest to give the impression that the commercial entity cares; this is not same as actually caring. At present Government intervenes to protect social and environmental interests, but this suffers from the same shortcomings listed above.

The solution
Ideally what we need is a system that inherently finds the best balance between free market and regulation, one that does so inherently due to the feedback loops in the institutions involved. The solution below is just a bare outline of one possibility, it could be done in many ways.

The values that are involved in success in the commercial sector are essentially self interested advancement, regardless of its effect on others. This can be summed up as ER values. (see the Spiral Dynamics posts on the site for descriptions of value systems)

Whilst gaining office as a politician requires giving the impression of caring, the values that are involved in becoming a successful politician are also largely those of being very self interested and argumentative in order to fight off constant attack from the public, media and other politicians.

My central argument is that we need an intermediary layer of people that are able to work with the self interested values of both government and the commercial sector. A layer than insulates the two from each other, lessening corruption, yet at the same time being a conduit for the information that needs to flow between them. Essentially it would act as a firewall between the two.

The values that are involved in maintaining a stable economy would essentially be community orientated rather than self-interested. FS values, leaning towards GT, with a dash of DQ would be ideal, also a good open understanding of ER would be necessary for theses people to work with politicians and the commercial sector.

This institution would need to be incentivised in a way that encourages long term careers and prevents corruption. They would also need to be in the public eye so that they can give their opinion on government policy, thus preventing rash, ill advised decisions and also have open access to commercial interests so that they can regulate them effectively.

To prevent corruption we could
a) Those with power in the institution could be essentially guaranteed a good living wage that extends well beyond their time of employment but at the cost of not being alowed to earn money elsewhere during and for sometime after leaving employment with the institution (the longer spent with the institution and the more influencial, the longer they are supported on leaving).  Thus preventing them from corrupting regulation and then entering the commercial sector to take advantage of it or vice versa. The nature of FS values are community orientated, people with the skills and FS/GT values will be incentivesd by this situation, not the reverse; it is important to understand the culture that we are engendering in this organisation.
b) The pension of those with power in the organisation includes a significant bonus that is given for successful long term management of the economy. If government forces through policy that people in this organisation disagree with then this is taken into account.
c) Whenever a politician is interviewed by media, this organisation is always asked for comment that must be published. The institution is given a media budget to ensure the public is aware if the government is acting against its advice.
d) All meetings with both politicians and commercial interests are recorded and publicly available.
e) Large financial and jail penalties for corrupt practices for all parties.
f) he institution would not just employ econonmists, but people to represent the issues that free market economics turns a blind eye to, such as environmental scientists.

Because FS values are not as efficient at controlling resource use as ER it is important that they are not given an open wallet, but have to work within a limited budget. There would need to be some kind of feedback process to ensure that this budget was sufficient to do the job, yet not wasteful.

The top level of the organisation (i.e. those with policy making power) would have no fixed management but would work somwhere between an FS consensual team towards a GT rotating leadership system. It may work best to have multiple small teams, so that the institute can be efficient and have multiple opinions and approaches and not become a monolithic DQ organisation.

In essense this organisation already exists in the civil service, but not in the form that I am describing. The organisation needs more power to manage regulation, inform the public and policy decissions, yet at the same time be more accountable for its actions.

Conclusion
I’ve just laid out the bare bones of an idea here for developing a way in which the best part of a free market can be kept while at the same time allowing for effective regulation that prevents monopoly, environmental degradation and corruption. It is simplified and needs a lot of details filling in. The essential point I am trying to get across is that by understanding the values that are being motivated in a system we can instigate solutions that inherently motivate a stable system. The genius of Adam Smith was that he realised that by utilising peoples greed we could create an economic system that was far more effective, and improved the lives of all, than a top down approach.  The flaw is that he only worked with one human motivation and there are others that we need to take into account to create a stable system.

With world markets dropping like a stone, crucial resources such as oil depleting and pollution in the form of global warming threatening our very habitat, I still have hope. Why?

Strangely, five years ago, when nearly everyone else was partying, I was afraid. I strongly suspected the credit crisis was coming, I was investigating peak oil and was raised to be concerned about our environment. I was a doomer.

Today I am optimistic. I do have concerns and things could certainly go down the pan, we have a long struggle ahead of us. Now that the problems are largely being recognised I feel a sense of relief and am able to focus on what needs doing more clearly.

Perhaps I just like to be contrary, but there is reason to my madness. As anyone who has followed this blog will notice I find Graves’ E-C theory fascinating. It is popularly known as Spiral Dynamics and deals with how humans value their lives and the world. Although his theory predicts some reasons to fear, my reading of the current situation is hopeful. Here is why.

Graves studied how people value the world and how that impacts on their behaviour, I have written about it elsewhere on the site, so will not go into a lot of detail here. It is complicated to sum up the whole theory in a sentence without oversimplifying, but essentially the way humans value the world is evolving.

For the last few hundred years a values system known as ER (orange) has been growing in strength as more people embrace its ideology.  This system is characterised by an ‘express self’ attitude, where we put our selves and our own needs first. Yet it is a system that does so through planning rather than immediate gratification. It is a rational, thought out value system, but one that is reductionist and tends to have tunnel vision. For all ER’s ability to create an economy that can produce unparalleled wealth and freedom it is useless at seeing the side effects of its externalisations. It does not equate the waste or resource streams into its economic model because equating them is not in its  foundational interests. As a result we have major economic crashes, depleting resources and an eco system that is becoming unfit for civilisation as we know it. This value system has brought us many great things from democracy through to the scientific method, it is not that the system is bad, just that it has had its day. It is time to develop a new way of valuing the world that takes on board the best that ER offers us, yet also has inherent appropriate responses to the problems it has caused.

For all its flaws the ER system has many benefits over the previous dominant value system, DQ (blue). DQ is an absolutist, dualistic, fundamentalist, dogmatic value system in which it is believed everyone has their place. This was a world of caste systems, an absolute belief in how life works that is handed down from superiors without question.  DQ is still around today, it is still a strong value system that many embrace whole heartedly, there are even more primitive value systems around to a lesser effect. The world is a complex place.

It is important to stress that these are systems in people, not people in systems.  A person is not in the DQ system. DQ is a system that is operating in a person, often at the same time as other value systems. People are complex.

If we have overshot our resources to such an extent that the ER system is no longer viable then it is very likely that the dominant system will descend back towards DQ. There is a very good historical example of this happening before. 1930s Germany.  ER science with DQ values is not a pretty sight. As I said, I am not without my concerns.

However, I have hope, and it is with reason.

Over the last 100 years a new value system has been evolving in response to the shortcomings of ER. It is known as FS (Green). FS takes Newtonian physics and relativises it. FS takes a colonial anthropological perspective and pluralizes it.  FS takes modern art and post-modernises it.  FS takes the scientific method that ER created and runs with it, transforming it into a multiperspictival tool. Rather than looking for a single formula that explains all existence, it conceptualises a formula to its environment. Someone with FS values cares about the environment beyond their back yard, they care about peoples happiness and ability to live life to the full regardless of their cultural origins. FS inherently develops economies that care about the resource and waste streams and it is capable of doing so without abandoning all the benefits that the ER economy brought about.

FS is a ’sacrifice self’ value system as was DQ. However the sacrifice is not to an omnipotent dictator or creator, but to the equality of all. DQ develops a strong sense of community but where everyone outside of that community is an evil ‘other’. Everyone with FS values appreciates community, but that community is different for every person, it extends to everyone that touches that persons life, no matter how far away that person is or how culturally different they are. A purely FS system of government would be inherently anarchistic, but not in the sense of the barbaric CP value system, it is a peaceful, peer reviewed, consensual seeking anarchism. It is democracy as it truly could be, with everyone having a say.

FS brings its own problems, it can take a long time to find consensus, but solutions to these will be found, in fact they are already on the horizon. Lets not race ahead, ER loves to get to the top of the pile and when ER looks at the system after FS (GT) it sees something it wants to be, but it can’t, not without first developing through FS. We need to deeply identify the problems with FS before GT can evolve to resolve them.

The reason I have hope that society is going to move forwards rather than backwards is several fold.

Firstly, moving to new systems of governance involves the destruction of the old.  When Galileo challenged the church, we were starting our transition to the ER system, it was not without conflict. The transition to FS should not be so bloody, if it is then it is likely we are descending to DQ rather than ascending to FS. Thus it is natural for there to be turmoil. In an individual under transition, there is a great deal of psychological upheaval as the foundations of how the person perceives the world changes and this process often takes time, this will be even more true in society. The problems we are struggling with could just as easily be caused by ER shifting towards FS. A temporary regression is understandable and probably inevitable.

Secondly, everywhere I look I see examples of FS thinking. From global warming scientists who will not come off the fence about exactly how bad the situation is because they understand the complexity it. To people in my local community running climate chaos kitchens and organising a transition town.  People everywhere questioning, knowing that the way we have been living is burning up and that we need to find a new way, we need ‘change’.

I grew up in a bohemian family and throughout my childhood I often came across a framed poem on the walls of my parents friends houses. It was claimed to be from an anonymous monk, but it was actually written by Max Ehrmann, a poet and lawyer in 1927. It is called the Desiderata.  A line of the poem keeps returning to me.

‘With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams; it is still a beautiful world.‘

I recently sent this open letter to George Monbiot in response to his Identity Politics in Climate Change Hell article

………………

Hi George

I’ve been following your writing for several years, my views usually agree quite closely to your own and I applaud you for managing to voice genuine global concerns in mainstream media as clearly as you do.

I’m writing because whilst reading your ‘Identity Politics in Climate Change Hell’ article I came to the conclusion that you were missing part of the equation.  I agree that we must engage the business world in seeking out solutions to the climate crisis. However, I think it is important to understand what the modern anarchist movement represents and why it is even more critical to engage it constructively.

The psychologist Clare Graves spent most of his long academic life studying how people value humanity; how they perceive and think it is best to behave in the world.  After many years of empirical research studying his subject he developed a theory that matched the data he had collated. Unfortunately he died in the 1980s before publishing his magnum opus and the core of his theory was lost from the public until recently when some of his students collated his work and published it [1].  While his work could certainly do with further research and peer review, it is the best I have come across in many years of trying to find explanations for why society behaves the way it does.  His theory predicts that problems such as global warming and peak oil would arise; he does not name them, just points out that the current dominant values in society are blind to waste and resource streams.

Graves theory has several names, I am simply going to refer to it as E-C theory, as the book above does. It is a complex theory, far too complex to express it in full in an email; even after years of studying it I am still constantly learning new nuances.  The reason for this is that the model is inherently open-ended and essentially describes how complex systems interact.  I am going to explain a small, much simplified part, but it is important to stress that due to the nature of the simplification, it makes humans seem a lot more simple than they are; the full theory does not do so.  Even with this simplification, this email is rather long; I do hope you find the time to read it.

Graves’ research uncovered five main systems for how people value the world around them. Through library research he predicted a further three. His research also demonstrated that peoples values are complex and are often not centred on a single system and that the way in which they develop is complex, yet also follows a general pattern of linear development, each value system building on the discoveries and failures of the previous one. I am only going to be discussing four of the original five, starting with the third one in out of the seven

We are going to join the picture with the C-P value system, this value system generally has a limited sense of ‘self’ awareness. People centred here realise that they are an individual and so have a strong boundary of what is them and what is not, however they do not have a strong sense of other peoples identities.  As a result, a person centred here will associate a person they are close to as being an extension of their own identity and other people as objects to be used as desired.  The culture associated with this value system is often violent (verbally, if not physically) and tends to encourage gangs to form where the members of the gang associate their buddies as extensions of themselves, because of this, a gang member will protect a fellow gang member, even if that means putting their own life at extreme risk, they will also however beat a fellow member to death if they think they were put at risk by them.  People centred here are essentially self-centred opportunists with little thought for future consequences of their actions and mainly interested in instant gratification.

The next system (D-Q) that clearly develops is one in which the sense of other has become much more fully formed. A very neat, organised, yet dogmatic system arises in which people centred here have developed such a strong appreciation for the consequences of their actions that they can be controlled with the justification of a future reward, one that they may believe they will only receive after death.  This system allows for the rise of civilisation in an empire/monarchist form in which society is hierarchy structured and everyone knows their place.  Vertical social mobility is actively discouraged through rigid class systems.  An interesting aspect of this system is that a single hierarchy does not seem to be able to exist on its own; if there is not another to compete with then a faction will break away.  People outside the hierarchical group are thought of as ‘others’ and are not truly considered human.  A person in this system can be extremely caring and giving to others in their own hierarchy (although often not to those below them) yet at the same time they would vilify an ‘other’ simply for being different.  Logic is valued in this system, but only in an absolute dogmatic sense.  There are facts, but these are as handed down from authority, not developed though logical reasoning.

A person centred in the third system (E-R) has further developed their sense of reasoning to the point that they no longer accept facts as given to them and instead investigate phenomena with their own senses to uncover evidence that supports hypotheses. These people tend to be self centred and out for self gain, but they understand the consequence of abusing those in power and the power of the system and so only break the law if they know they can get away with it. They also value the law, as much as they may grumble about its constraining their lack of opportunity, they appreciate its protecting them from C-P impulses. On a cultural level it is expressed in the concepts of the free market, democracy and the scientific method. People living from this system value the right to live life as they choose to live it, believing everyone has the right to forge a life for themselves, as a result, vertical social mobility is encouraged. However despite the desire for freedom, the very nature of the self-centeredness of this system encourages the creation of hierarchical social structures, which whilst not ridged as they where at DQ, do result in the opportunity for the abuse of power. The problems this system creates largely stem from further limitations in the ability to reason. Whilst this system is genuinely able to rationally appraise a situation, it is only in a reductionist manner. This system evaluates accurately within the blinkered set of information that it considers, but is prone to mistakes and erroneous conclusions due to a lack of consideration for all the many other possible elements that do not exist within its knowledge of the world.  In other words, whilst it is capable of examining that which it can hold, it is not very successful at examining the assumptions with which it is doing the holding.

The final value system I am going to outline in this email is F-S. People centred in this system respond to E-R by developing the ability to investigate the assumptions within which they are investigating the world around them.  This results in an appreciation for many possible solutions to a problem, an appreciation for the many different people, cultures and ways of living that are different from their own; as a result it swings people back towards a community centred perspective on life. Unlike D-Q, the sense of community is not centred on their culture, but on all the people that they interact with.  People in this system are capable of thinking outside the box and of considering the problems that the E-R system creates.  Academic examples of F-S thought include Einstein’s Theory of relativity and Godel’s incompleteness theorems. Culturally, this system introduces concepts such as human rights (beyond the borders of their own lives) and ecological concern, however we do not yet have an example of a society that has fully embraced this system. By examining groups of people who utilise this system we do know something of what an F-S society would look like. It would be non-hierarchical with little opportunity for the abuse of power, rather than managers and leaders we would have facilitators and inspiring friends.  The system of organisation would be more peer to peer based and consensus driven, resulting in a society more resilient to catastrophe.  This system also produces its own problems, the search for consensus can be lengthy and protracted and a large amount of energy is invested in social connections.  Since society at large has not yet reached this value system, exploring further usually presents more problems than solutions; from the perspective of whatever the current value system is, it is easy to confuse the one that is two steps on, and think that you are implementing it, when really it is being translated down to the current one and the problems are simply externalised and thus become ignored rather than resolved.

These value systems are not concrete absolutes but brief moments of clarity as the chaotic processes of the mind briefly coalesce in a point of clarity. It is important not to take them too literally, yet they do provide a lot of insight into how society as a whole is progressing, the kinds of problems we are likely to face when a system is dominant and the varieties of solutions that will help.  (The process of development between systems has been researched and a great deal is known about it, however this is beyond the scope of this email).  I also feel the need to stress again, as it is often miss understood, that I am simplifying what goes on here, people are not these systems, these systems (several simultaneously) exist within people, sometimes one is dominant, but often not.

Finally I can come back to your article about Ewa Jasiewicz’s and Anarchism. The central issue that grated with me lies with the semantics of ‘Anarchism’. It means different things to different people.  The original definition of Anarchy is that of ‘A state of lawlessness and disorder.’ [2], in common usage, my experience is that this usually refers to situations where countries with a D-Q system of government, often a dictatorship or similar, has collapsed, and people are running around the streets looting, pillaging and raping as the society dips, hopefully temporarily, into a CP system of immediate needs.  However the modern Anarchist movement is actually something quite different, it refers to a system of government that is non-authoritarian, within that, there are many conflicting definitions [3].

The nature of the F-S system is that it does away with the need for central control and so the F-S system is inherently anarchistic. How a nation could organise itself in this way is unknown and will probably never be fully realised; all the systems that I have described are abstracted absolutes of reality.  We do not really have an idealised ‘free’ market economy at present, nor a system of government that could lie anywhere on a linear scale between the systems that I have described.  What we have could more closely be described as multiple systems running concurrently that are centralised somewhere around the E-R system.  If the nation was centralised around the F-S system, then we would likely see far less central control and it would have far less power than it does now, that does not mean it would not exist, just as dogmatic religion, where non believers are eternally damned, still exists in a country that is governed by laws that grant us (to a large extent) freedom of speech and beliefs.

The reason I am writing is not because I disagree with your position on engaging the state and corporate worlds, but in how you underestimate the power and meaning of the ‘anarchist politics’ that you experienced.

We do need to engage every facet of society to find solutions and one of the hardest parts will be finding solutions that work for people who are not centred at F-S, without making the situation worse.  Finding corporate and state solutions will buy us more time and will encourage many more people to consider the problems that lead to F-S values, however they will not provide permanent solutions, that can only happen from the very set of values that has evolved in response to the problem.

A final point. I am not familiar enough with Ewa Jasiewicz’s writtting to say how much I agree/dissagree with her, and am not doing either here.  I will say, that just becasue someone claims to be something it does not mean that they are, not everyone at the climate camp will have been living from F-S values.

I’ve posted this letter to my blog at www.skyshine.co.uk, My introduction to E-C theory there is more comprehensive, but unfinished. I do however include many links to further reading on the web.

1. http://www.clarewgraves.com/neq/neq.html

2. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+anarchy&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

I have read a great deal of stories over the last few years, especially from the USA about electronic voting and its pitfalls; about how easily such systems can be corrupted.  I agree with their conclusions. (see … http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ and http://blackboxvoting.com )

However at the same time I am not anti technology and when I consider the democratic process that we have it does not seem very democratic to me.

The idea behind democracy is to allow the ‘people’ to decide how the country is run, therefore democracy needs to:-
a) Allow the people to decide what policies are implemented.
b) Do so effectively and efficiently.

At present this is achieved by allowing the ‘people’ to vote for who they want to represent them in making decisions on how the country is run. The successful candidates are a small enough group to meet together and vote on actual policies. (Often there is a second vote, as in the USA, to decide an ultimate figurehead as well, however I am from the UK so will write for the system I am used to.)

I think that this was a revolutionary solution a few hundred years ago, when democracy was for the first time becoming a method of governance for a whole country. Messages got across the country by courier on horseback and organising anything more than this would have been unworkable.

Now however, we live in an age where communication travels at light speed. Anyone can be up to date with the decisions that government is making and technology could easily let everyone have their say.

Over the centuries, the means to sway the masses to vote in a particular way has become very sophisticated. Often the party that spends the most, wins the most.  If we could start to take parties out of the equation, if we could make participation in the democratic process less of a black and white choice and more of a participatory experience then I think it would be very likely to encourage people to think far more deeply on the issues at hand and create a far more active and true democratic system.

Corruption has crept into the system and government often listens more closely to vested and corporate interests than the needs of the general public. If we remove this decision making power from the few individuals who have it today and instead let everyone have a say then corruption will have a far harder time taking hold.

Technology has come on a long way since democracy was invented, this is presenting us with new challenges in order to maintain a genuinely democratic process yet it is also providing us with an opportunity to reinvent how we govern our countries. For the first time in history, we can, if we choose it, make our democracies truly democratic.

There are many inherent flaws in the current process (I am talking generally here, although there is plenty of variation around the world, they all have the same basic flaws that I will outline here.)

1. There are never enough candidates to represent everyone’s point of view - not even close.

2. In order to be elected, politicians need to appeal to as many people as possible in order to be successful. Rather than this resulting in a good representation of peoples views it often leads to spin doctoring. Often politicians say one thing to get elected and then vote differently.

3. The current system creates a power hierarchy where many are attracted to politics for the power it brings rather than more altruistic people who genuinely want to represent the ‘people’. This makes it easy for corruption to creep in and for biased interests to have leverage in government policy.  This is particularly apparent with the amount of sway the corporate world has over government.

4. It is very hard to pass new laws that involve taking power away from government, as government itself has to vote on these laws.

5. It distances the ‘people’ from the democratic process as they only have a say in it once every so many years, and only a limited say at best.

6. The reliance on a party system causes problems to be presented in overly simplified ways where there are only two views, which are often polar opposites. The truth of most situations is much more colourful.

How we could improve the situation
What follows is a systems design for a solution to the above issues.  Rather than hide behind a rock when faced with the electronic voting system, I would rather grab it by the thorns and remake it in a way that is both secure and improves the democratic system.  The system that I define below allows people to take a far more active role in government, but it does not alienate those who are quite happy to continue voting once every few years.  I have designed the system with two central principles. It must be both secure and confidential; this is a challenge, but not one that I think is insurmountable.

The new system starts by continuing to encourage people to vote in a general election as they do now, voting for someone in their constituency. However at the same time it allows individuals to sign up with a website where they can choose to override their representatives vote on issues that they choose to.  This allows the general population to continue to influence government as they have been but it also allows for a new more active participatory democracy.

Instead of giving each MP a fixed vote, which counts for one out of however many are sitting in parliament. They are instead given a number of votes equal to the number of people who voted for them (or the total number of votes in their constituency). When a vote is taken in parliament, the power of their vote will have more or less power depending on how many people actually voted. In addition, after the general election, anyone who voted has the opportunity to register on a government website and be enabled to vote on motions in parliament. In doing so, anyone who is interested can have their single vote removed from the person that they elected and can instead choose to vote anyway they choose on motions presented to parliament.  This would be achieved through the website and would allow people to ensure that their vote was used to vote for the things they felt were particularly important.  When someone votes on an issue, the MP they elected has one less vote. Most people would not want to, nor have the time to vote on every issue and so they would be able to elect any of the sitting MPs to represent them the rest of the time.

To achieve this, a few small changes would need to be made to government process. The first is simply in the counting of the votes.  The second is that the time for voting would need to be extended, to perhaps a 24 hour period. This solution allows government to continue as it does now, yet it also allows for a more active democracy. It would allow for a steady, quiet revolution rather than the messy varieties of old.  As more people become used to being more actively involved in government, the system could continue to be updated in ways that make the process fairer and more efficient, resulting in a democracy that is far less susceptible to corruption.

There would be several important issues to consider, for example, what motions get put before parliament in the first place; perhaps to start with, this would happen as it does now, slowly introducing a mix of issues presented by MPs and early day motions made popular by people signed up on the website.

There would be issues of media persuading people to vote a particular way for ulterior motives. This is a serious problem, but it is one we already have.  I will be writing about an open media in another post so will leave this for now.

Another issue would involve security. This would be easy to do if the system was completely transparent, but I am not sure that society is ready for this. By completely transparent, I mean that:-
a) The software is all open source and anyone can investigate it.
b) Everyone on this system is open about their identity. This would mean that anyone’s voting record is public knowledge and everyone on the system is identified by their real name.

The reason we have confidential voting is to prevent people from being bullied into voting for issues that they do not want to; by family, community and society. This does leave our current system open to fraud in numerous ways and this would also apply to any electronic voting platform that needs to be both transparent and confidential.

Perhaps society is ready to move beyond the need for the confidentiality. Have we reached a critical mass of individuals that are capable of thinking through the issues for themselves and are prepared to vote against their peers and authority figures?  I wish society was so enlightened, but I have my doubts that it is.

In working out a solution to this conflict of interests it is important to remember what the purpose of the confidentiality is.  It is to protect the integrity of the voting system. If a way could be found that could allow people to check that the votes are genuine without allowing open access to everyone’s voting history then the system would be secure.  At first this seems like a contradiction in terms, but I don’t think that it is.  One way of implementing this is outlined below.

There are several important issues that need to be considered to ensure that the system is both secure and confidential.
a) How to ensure that peoples votes are actually counted accurately.
b) How to guarantee that the people voting are real, eligible  people and that they are genuinely voting.
c) How to ensure all this whilst not leaving a voting history that can be tracked to the actual voter.
d) In the process of creating the system, not creating a database of confidential information that could be used for malicious ends.

What follows is one possible solution to these questions.

Part 1 - Signing up to the system
The most important parts of this process are
a) Ensure that the person is who they say that they are.  This could be achieved by insisting that people register in an official location, where there identity is confirmed using a process similar to that used for passports etc.
b) Ensuring that their user identity is set up in a way that does not tie their voting history to their real name.
c) Ensuring that no database of biometric data is created that can connect to the persons real identity. This does not mean that biometric data is not used, just that it is only used in a way that maintains privacy.

When someone attends a place of registration, they are identified and it is checked that they are not already registered. This public register is the same as the one that can currently be accessed from a library. Ideally it should not contain addresses, but since at present it does I have decided that in designing this voting system I have purposefully attempted to avoid adding to privacy issues, but I am not addressing the wider questions around national ID cards etc. This is an important topic that I will discuss another time.

The persons public registration details are entered into a computer (see section below about the software and hardware used in this process) and these are uploaded to the main voting server (more about this later). They are uploaded with a status of ‘awaiting confirmation’.

The person is then asked to enter a privacy cubical.  Inside the private cubical there is a computer with a simple registration process.
a) The voter is asked to enter a screen name that they would like to be identified as. This must be unique.  They are informed that they must keep this name secret, as it is a public name and anyone can look up their voting history if they know their screen name.
b) The computer then performs an iris scan. Everyone’s iris is unique, but even if the technology is not perfect, it does not have to be, as will be clarified later.  This iris scan will not be connected with either the real identity of the person or their voting history so a biometric ID database is not being created.  The iris scan could be replaced with a fingerprint, any biometric data could be used, I am choosing iris scans simply because they are more accurate, but the cost and simplicity may make fingerprints the method of choice.
c) The person is given or creates a random password. The password would not need to be very long because it would be used in conjunction with the iris scan (explained below), the system could allow the person to enter their own password and then ensure that it is complex enough.  The person will be informed that they must keep this password secret as it can be used in conjunction with their iris scan to identify them.

On entering this information, various processes take place, which I will describe below, but first I will finish the registration from the person’s perspective.

The person is then given a print out of the username and password, and are strongly warned to keep this information private.  If they can do so, then they should memorise them and destroy the paper.  If they are unable to memorise them then they should store the username and password in different locations (the printout could be perforated to aid this.)  The username and password could be presented in a randomised grid of data, so that all the person has to remember is the starting coordinates to read off the information, the coordinates could be in the form of a memorable date; this would prevent the casual thief from accessing the data, but may present a false sense of security as it would not be secure against a professional attack. Even if this information is made public, the voting system itself is not compromised as it depends on the iris scan; only the persons personal voting history is easily compromised and to someone with access to the full iris database, which everything is done to prevent, could the persons iris scan be connected with these details and even this does not connect to their real name.

At this point the person is told that they have successfully registered and that they are to inform the clerk outside the cubicle that they registered with.

The clerk then looks their real name identification up on the public list and marks them as an active voter on the list. The registered voter can now return home.

Computer processes in the sign up process - Hardware
It is important to ensure that no malicious hardware is installed in the system that compromises  privacy or the security of the vote.

The computer used by the clerk and the computer used in cubicle would both be standardised systems built specificity for the task they are doing. Because they are standardised, any qualified member of the public can request to swap out the hardware with a replacement for investigation.  This prevents any corruption from inside the registration organisation. This investigation would take place on the premises and be monitored both by someone in the registration office and through a publicly available CCTV feed to the internet.

By ‘qualified member of the public’ I mean anyone who can demonstrate that they know what they are doing, I won’t go into details of how to ascertain this, but the process should be simple enough to encourage participation yet complex enough to deter time wasters. A certain amount of public funds could be made available for ‘qualified members of the public’ to drive this process.

All hardware is inspected under publicly accessible CCTV before begin installed. Once installed, this hardware is never out of range of the CCTV inspection that is archived on the internet for anyone to investigate.  Surprise inspections would not be necessary because the hardware is under constant surveillance.

The only connection these computers have to the outside world would be through a secure encrypted connection to the main voting servers, so the CCTV only needs to monitor the hardware to the point of its internet connection. It should be arranged in such a way that no view of the public is visible - this is important to maintain privacy.

The hardware for the cubicle should not be accessible from within the cubicle, other than through the input mechanisms (keyboard/mouse), however it should also be under CCTV surveillance and be swappable.  It should be located in a way that makes the connection to the cubicle clear (leaving no blind spots in the CCTV) yet also retain the privacy of those using the cubicle.

In order to maintain privacy with a swappable system, they should be physically built to ensure that if a process is interrupted - for example the hardware is swapped out whilst someone is in the cubicle, then all trace of the active process is irreversibly erased; this could be done by having a battery powered, hard-wired system that takes over if the power supply is disconnected and immediately erases any sensitive data, combined with disconnecting the power supply being physically built into swapping out the hardware.

Computer processes in the sign up process - Software
All the software would be built using open source principles specificity for purpose from BIOS level up.  Making the software open source allows for the general public to verify its security and for a rapid identification of weaknesses that can be corrected.

The operating system would ideally operate entirely from ROM that must be physically swapped out for an upgrade, this would be a strong defence against any form of spyware being installed.   The nature of the software being installed in ROM would allow for easy checks that the installed system is exactly the same as the version it was installed from (by using checksum methods).

As with the hardware, qualified members of the public can swap out systems to check all is as it should be.

The password entered by the potential voter is used to algorithmically collect data from the iris scan and this resulting data is used to create a unique cryptographic hash.  This hash key can in no way be reverse engineered to identify the password that it is identified with.  However whenever the iris scan and the password are passed through the same algorithm, the same hash is presented.  This means we now have a way for a user to have their iris scanned, type in their password and thus be positively identified as a registered voter without the persons name needing to be associated with them.

The password is also used to create another cryptographic hash with the username.

The iris is then uploaded to the main voting server, connected to its hash.  The username and username hash are then uploaded in a separate process, leaving the server with no method of connecting the two processes (software is built in such a manner that no identifying information, such as IP address is recorded against the uploaded information.)

The day of registration is also uploaded against each registration, but no time stamp. This means that each username can be identified as having come from one of all the irises uploaded on that day - this reduces the anonymity to one in tens to hundreds of thousands.

The software now erases the local copies of the iris scan, username, password and the two hashes, leaving no method of recovering the information (this is not a normal delete, it would require multiple overwrites of the memory using random data.)

Registration Clerks
Each clerk would obviously be vetted and trained, however in order to prevent corruption creeping in from their end, when registering a persons name they would also have to enter a password, whose cryptographic hash is stored on the main voting server. The registering clerk is then associated with the real name of the person on the electoral register.  Each privacy booth could also be associated with a particular clerk, so that when the private information is uploaded it is also associated with the clerk.  This presents some advantages and disadvantages.  The advantage is that in investigating fraud, the number of suspects is severely reduced. The disadvantage is that the voters anonymity is now reduced to one in all those registered by that clerk, in that one day.  This could only work if the clerk is guaranteed to process several hundred a day. It may be necessary to register a person against the registration centre, rather than the clerk. Anonymity of one in several hundred should be fine for our purposes here; no one would be able devise a persons voting history, or work out whose iris belongs to which name and that is what is important.  It does mean that peoples usernames can be geographically identified.

Registration conclusion
Should the registration system be compromised - and the only likely way I can think of this happening would be due to corrupt registering agents, voters would need to re-register once a year, and should an agent be identified as corrupt then everyone registering with them would need to reregister. To reregister, a person first enters their old details in the privacy cubicle and the account would be automatically renewed.

Should a person forget their password or username, there would be no way of identifying the person to retrieve the details; the system would not be secure if there was.  If the iris scan was 100% accurate in identifying the person then it would be possible to cancel the iris scan and this would automatically prevent the login process from working for the username, in this situation the person could reregister. If the iris scan is not 100% accurate then they would have to wait for a year before they would be able to reactivate their account; their elected representative would continue to represent them for this time.  This is not ideal, but I can see no way around this without 100% accurate biometric data or a lack anonymity.

To stress an important point of this process: The only way that a person’s iris scan can be connected with the person is if the password and username are made public.  This password is not recorded anywhere on the system, only the voter has it.  Even if the country descended into a dictatorship, the database could not be used to identify people or their voting history.

Part 2 - Voting on an issue.
Ideally people would vote using an isolated client provided when they registered; this clients sole purpose would be to connect to the voting website. This would make it far easier to ensure that the client is free of spyware. The client would be able to connect to the internet using any means available. I.E narrowband, broadband, wireless connection etc. On boot up, the unit would run through a security check with the website to check it had not been compromised.  Such a system need not be very expensive, the computer hardware needed does not need to be state of the art. Technology from ten years ago would be quite capable of doing what we need.  Once again the software would be open source from the BIOS up and would ideally have the entire operating system stored in ROM, this would however mean that security upgrades would have to be done by taking the system back to the registration office.  The qualified public would be encouraged to investigate their unit to ensure that it has not been compromised.

Alternatively the website could be accessed using a normal PC, but this would not be as secure as it would be vulnerable to spyware attacks that could compromise accounts; however there is a secondary check detailed below to keep this to a minimum. If an account is compromised then it may however allow a hostile interest to connect an account username with the real person and gain access to their voting history. It would also make it possible for compromised accounts to be used to place votes.  If access is to be done over a standard PC then a team would need to constantly check for spyware and the public encouraged to do so as well, whenever a system is identified as containing compromising spyware then the voters using this system have to reregister with a new username/password.

The login process
The computer uses a specialised webcam to take an iris image of the voter and the voter also enters their username and password. The image is passed to the website server along with the password and username over a secure connection. The server then checks the password against all the iris images that match the one uploaded. Unless the process is 100% accurate, there may be more than one match, this will not matter, as the hash will be complex enough to make it mathematically highly improbable for a false positive (The rare event of a false positives could be dealt with in the registration process by changing the password.) If the password hash is found then the system checks the username hash, if both match then the system logs them on. (See the server section to see how privacy is maintained in this process).  Using this process, the iris scan, password and username all have to entered correctly.  This means that should the printed information be stolen, it is impossible to log in with just the username and password.

The user would now also be able to select issues that they wish to vote on.  When they choose to vote, the username is recorded against the motion being voted on.

Once the person logs out or times out, the server erases any information that connected the iris to the password or username.

This login process may fail for a variety of reasons.
i) The iris scan is not recognised. Take a second iris scan and try again. If it fails repeatedly and the username and password match, then the users account is put on hold and the person is asked to re-register, and to take their iris scanner for an exchange.
ii) The password or username is incorrect. Allow another try, but give a pause of several seconds between attempts to prevent brute force attacks.

Various fraudulent checking algorithms could be used in the login process to check for patterns of failure.

When the iris image and the username is sent to the server for validation, the two are only stored together for the process of verification and at no point is the iris image or the registered name connected with the username in a way that is visible to anyone, meaning that no one can access voting history.  The details of this are in the server section below.

After a user has logged in to the website they are presented with a list of their previous votes.  This allows the voter to check that their account has not been compromised and votes placed in their name by someone else. A further check allows the voter to download spreadsheets of the tallies of the votes, listing every username and the way in which they voted.  This allows the general public to see that their vote has been recorded exactly as they requested.  Voters are encouraged to check this information when they log in. This is also a secondary check against spyware, as compromised accounts would show votes that they have not made.

Part 3 - The web servers
Once again, all software used is open source from the bios up, using operating systems stored in ROM, with the live web servers being open to inspection by qualified members of the public. A system could be set up, where individual load balanced servers could be swapped out for inspection by the public inspector; meaning the actual live servers could be inspected moments after being taken down.  Any in-process iris/username information is immediately erased on removal of the server from the farm using the system explained earlier.

IP addresses and other computer identifying information would be used in certain login and verification processes but never logged in a way that could be connected to the username or iris scan. Any such information in process when a server is swapped out would also be erased.

All communication between the voters computer and the end server is over a secure encrypted connection.  This is actually the weakest part that I can identify in this system.  Whilst the connection can be secured with a unhackable level of cryptography, all encrypted internet connections depend on the server holding a cryptographic key. Anyone with the private part of this key can compromise the system.  The system has been designed in such a way that all information except for the personal passwords are public, (with the exception for open access to the iris database, although this is more of a precaution than a necessity.)  In some way the cryptographic key would have to be installed and propagated to the servers in a way that no human eyes lay eyes upon it, nor have access to it, yet it the public part of the key is published in a trustworthy way.  Any server removed from the system would have to erase teh private key. One way of doing this would be to create a new key with each login attempt to the system, the key being deleted along with the other data in the event of the server being swapped out. This would ensure that the connection would be secure, however security certificates serve a second purpose and that is of ensuring that the server you are connecting to is the one you think it is and without a signed key you would not know this. Cryptographic keys are signed by verification companies who are trusted to be secure. If that company is compromised then theoretically the secure keys they have encrypted can also be compromised. Personally, I do not think that this is a secure enough a solution for our needs. Here is the best alternative I can think of. A special console attached to the server system that is under CCTV surveillance has a unique job of creating a new key pair.  When this console is asked to create a new key, it automatically does so and copies the private part of the key to the servers in the system, also updating any that are swapped into the system, the private key is stored in the part of memory that is automatically erased on being swapped out, including in the console itself, which would also need to be able to be swapped out. Nobody ever sees or has access to the private key. The main role of this console is to present the public part of the key on the consoles screen that is being watched by CCTV. This would allow people to verify that the public key presented by the web server is genuinely the key presented. There is a further flaw here, in that the CCTV system it self could be compromised, the best way I can think of to prevent this is to have the public key on the console visible from a publicly accessible area. The CCTV that is monitoring the system can in this case also see the public who are visiting, thereby allowing the public to verify the genuine nature of the CCTV image.

This whole process is highly dependant on public participation in the security of the system.  I don’t think this is a problem, I think it is a bonus, the active responsibility on the public of keeping the system secure will I think engender a sense of pride and interest in the democratic process.  Schools in particular could be encouraged to visit the voting servers, teaching children about the hard won gift of democracy that they are born with and their responsibility in maintaining it, whilst at the same time allowing for constant verification and witnessing of the security (and lack of tampering with) the servers.

Nighttime might still be an issue, but a security check of servers could be made every morning and a new key pair generated.

The introduction of new servers into the server farm and the updating of existing servers would go through a similarly fully monitored process, both in person and remotely. Every step from the compilation of the latest code base to the insertion of the server would be recorded broadcast and archived.

Things I’ve missed.
I may well have missed an important point somewhere along the line, please point it out if I have. Regardless, I think any problems will have solutions; what often appears an intractable problem due to what seems to be conflicting interests are often not when the case is examined more closely. What I have presented here is just one way in which I think this could be achieved, there will almost certainly be improvements to be made.

Finally,
This system covers a method for identifying individuals in a secure manner and allowing that individual to cast a vote that is confidential.

At the moment I can see several possible issues with this system.

1. The expense of providing the home equipment needed to make votes.  As a back of the envelope estimation I would say that at the levels of production required this would come in at around £100 per household, for such a major step forward for democracy I do not think this needs to be a limiting factor.

2. I am not entirely sure that the recording of biometric data is entirely necessary.  It provides several helpful features.
a) Shorter passwords, without this, a back of the envelope guess of password length would be 20 characters. With the biometric only 5 or so, more like a pin. This is because the biometric data provides a far greater quantity of data for cryptographic use.
b) It makes it impossible for someone’s vote to be stolen (or bought) just because they know the password and screen name. It does not make it impossible. The thief would need the password, screen name, a high-resolution copy of the iris scan, and the knowledge to hack the software of the voting computer to make it accept the copy instead of the genuine scan.
c) Possibly a way of re-registering someone if they forget their username and login. (Needs a 100% accurate match).

Having said this, the biometric data does not create a great deal of privacy concern, precisely because it is not connected to anything that identifies the person with the scan. The iris scan would likely also be fiddly and not user friendly. A finger print may be easier and so may be preferable despite the loss of accuracy.

4. One concern I have not gone into is how fraud would be investigated, as it would inevitably need to be. The main system I have built into this design is in the recording of the registration place and day against both the real name and the screen name, this reduces the matches to a few hundred, making a door to door investigation possible if it became needed. Ideally the system would be built in such a way that fraud would be so hard to do and so risky (large consequences for doing so) that it very rarely happens.  One of the ways I have achieved this in this system is to make everyone’s vote count on every issue through their elected representatives vote even if they do not vote themselves. With an estimated 40 million eligible adults in the UK, 400,000 votes would need to be rigged to make approximately one percentage point of change in the vote. (Assuming half the people voted one way and half the other.) I find it hard to believe that this level of fraud would go unreported by the people whose votes are being used; because of this, I am not worried about votes being illegally bought or stolen.

5. I know I’ve made a lot of unqualified and unreferenced statements here, but this is a blog post not an academic paper - I just don’t have the time. I expect there are a lot of people out there who agree with this sentiment, my intention here is to get an idea out there that the system can be changed, I hope to inspire greater minds than mine to fill in the blanks and correct my mistakes.

6. This system could be built to be as user friendly as possible, but it will take a little savvy in order to use it. My great, great grandmother and my great grandmother where both suffragettes who spent time in prison to give women the right to vote. The argument against was essentially that women did not have the intelligence to make considered political opinions. I think that the great unwashed masses are quite capable of mastering this change, and besides, people do not have to partake, it is an optional extra, people can still just leave it at trundling down to the voting station once every few years if they prefer. Personally I think it would be a very exciting and engaging change that would revitalise people’s participation in democracy because finally they would know that their vote really does count.

(This is one of a series of posts exploring EC Theory / Spiral Dynamics. If you read this post alone you will get a very distorted view as to what spiral dynamics is as the post is written from one particular viewpoint. To read them in sequence, please start in the Spiral Dynamics intro category.)

It has come to me recently that in the past I did not consider the consequences of my actions. I would just see something that I wanted and take it. I am glad I have found the Party. I have been given my rightful station and a task to complete. I am to study the truth of the Spiral Dynamic

There are religious heathens on our border who believe in God being the ultimate source of wisdom and knowledge. Infidels. Do they not know that wise party member Claregreve divined the truth? Using the ancient way of consulting the Spiral Dynamic at midnight. Claregreve has the esteemed honour of being prime amongst us mere mortals before the absolute truth of all.

A few years have passed. Party be blessed. I still hold the esteemed position in the order of all things. The party has successfully eradicated the godly heathens to the west. We have conquered their land and brought it under the true rule of the Party. We tortured the animals who would not repent. They clearly have not evolved enough to see the one truth.

No sooner than we put down the godly heathens that a faction has broken away to the south claiming that there is a new way divined though the way of the Spiral Dynamic. they claim that our way is inferior. We will win, as defined by the true Spiral Dynamic. The faction is not far from our location. I have been commanded to write down the truth so that it can be saved should our position be temporarily overrun.

The Spiral Dynamic commands thus:-

There are two kinds of human. Those that follow the true way of the Spiral Dynamic and those who do not. Of the heathens there are four subtypes.

1. The savage. These are designated the colour beige. They wander the wilderness looking for food and shelter. They are rare even beyond the borders of the empire of Spiral Dynamic.

2. The tribespeople. These are designated the colour purple. They live in the far reaches of the known lands. On an expedition last year we encountered one such tribe, their heathen ways were very strange. I suggested that we put them to the stake, but my leader said that we should study and catalogue them and see if they could be saved by the Spiral Dynamic. He was a wise leader, his words were true, praise him. These people speak backwards. They see the past in front of them when clearly the future is what lies before us, as the great spiral ticks forwards each unit of time moves one more step into the future. Purple people are always found in small tribes together. The heathens believe that their dead ancestors talk to them in their dreams, but we know as heathens they will have no place in the glorious Spiral Dynamic.

3. The barbarian. These people are designated the colour red. They do as they please. They know no law and just take as they wish. Sometimes when the purples go hungry they head to our cities and are red when they arrive. This transformation is beyond my humble mind but the Spiral Dynamic will reveal its truth when I am worthy. Often they band together into small gangs, raiding the villages. They have no care for the future and no care for each other beyond what is useful to them at the time. The Spiral Dynamic states that one of them will take great risks to save one of his own gang, only to turn around and beat the saved man to a pulp for making himself vulnerable.

4. The lost peoples. These people are designated the colour blue. They claim to know the one true way, they claim that God or some other ideal provides the ultimate law of truth. They are wrong. The one and only true way is described by the law of Spiral Dynamic. People who live this way have laws and order, they form towns and cites and the people within them know their places, yet they are heathens and for all their similarities to the one true way and they are eternally damned. Blue peoples, like the godly peoples to the west that we recently vanquished, form civilisations, they understand that the future must be considered in all the actions that we make, yet they do not consider that future in the true way.

I have been trying to place this new faction into the four heathen groups. I am having trouble doing so. The cities they have taken over are reportedly not burning to the ground as they would if red elements had taken over, yet they do not easily fit into blue because the reports say that they do not follow a fixed law. Instead they have people they call ‘lawyers’ who fight with words to decide who describes the truth the most accurately. I can not envision how this could be so, surely they would just break down into anarchy and start killing each other, yet reportedly this is not what happens. My superior has told me not to worry about it, the Spiral Dynamic will show the true way, but I can not help but feel concerned. I am not trusting my superiors wisdom. This is not good, I will loose my way from the Spiral Dynamic if I keep questioning in this way.

The true way of the Spiral Dynamic is lost. The faction has over ridden us. My supervisor jumped from his window this morning. He said he would rather die in truth than have to live under false rulers. I am hesitating from taking such action myself. It seems that when I think about it, there may be some truth in what the faction has to say. The claim that they are working under a new paradigm, one that they call orange, they also claim that what I saw as the true way is in reality just another expression of blue.

This makes some sense to me now. I need to think about it for myself some more before I come to a conclusion.

(This is one of a series of posts exploring EC Theory / Spiral Dynamics. If you read this post alone you will get a very distorted view as to what spiral dynamics is as the post is written from one particular viewpoint. To read them in sequence, please start in the Spiral Dynamics intro category.)

The way of spirits is failing me. The tribe has grown, many strangers have moved amongst us, one of them took me without the blessing of the ancestors and I am lost now.

The gods have given me the desire to take what I wish from the ancient lore of Spiral Dynamics. My brother told me that I was walking the path of the snake, fool. He is stupid and does not do as I tell him. The others are attacking the tribe this morning. I pick up the boiling pot and kill a man as he is aiming a spear at my brother. My brother is grateful and thanks the spirits. I told him he was a fool and that it was me he should be grateful too, he told me not to disrespect the ancestors and I clobbered him too. I did not mean to kill him, he was useful to me, but never mind.

The elder said that the snake had possessed me and I was dead to them. I am leaving the tribe. I am travelling to city to take what is mine.

As I travel I seduce a man and take his food and, then slit his throat, I will not let a foul beast such as that posses me.

There are many people here in the city. Many men to seduce, the good ones I let take me - for a good price, the bad - I just take their money. I have some women under me who do as I say and I am to be sure they are fed. There are many riches to be had in the city, I just have to take them. A man came today and became violent with one of my woman, I had my pimp take him and dump him in the river, no one does that to me. My woman was grateful to me.

My pimp let me seduce him, the fool. I am boss now and he knows his place. One of my woman tried to drown me when I was having a bath. How could my own do that to me? Never mind she is dead now. I have looked up the lore of Spiral Dynamics and created a few rules. No killing the boss is rule number one.

I must pay taxes to the church for God. It is a good racket that they have there. Everyone obeying the master, even when he is not looking. I do not like paying, but I am told I must or they will bring the law down on me. I am not afraid.

They came to get me this morning. They have locked me in a cell and told me that I am charged with article 127. I do not know what I did.

I have been in the cell for a long time now. I felt confused for a long time, but feel better now. There are three others in my cell. We fought at first but the warden would punish us whenever we did and we could not get back at him so we are getting on now. It is nice in a way, not to have to be the boss any more. I do not like being in here, always having to follow the rules, but I am given food every day that I do not have to kill for.

I have found God. The priest has shown me the holy way of Spiral Dynamics and I obey its every law now, we will all be better for it. I am no longer in prison, God be praised, I can serve my true master now with my devoted brothers and sisters.