digg 4 accountability

scribble about how to make people participate more - one idea to discuss:

idea

• our representatives care about their image in the public
• media cares about what happens in the arena too
• but the public memory is short lasting

thus our representatives don't care about yesterday's actions if they survive the day.

This is about to change, because the Web doesn't forget.

What if we would launch a service like http://www.digg.com which everyone

• may post a reference to a article (in this case citing a statement of a representative)
• readers may vote on that statement but differently to digg allow user's to rate "thumbs up" and "thumbs down"

The outcome might be a continuous rating of the credability and reputation of a representatives.

It is one thing, if there are surveys in the media from time to time on how people feel about their representatives and another thing if one is able to follow - and participate - on a day 2 day fact base.

challange

• how to prevent the misuse of the service (one person one vote ... at least prevention of automated fake votes)
• how to finance the governance of the platform (complaint management)

implementation

• there is a similar projecgt on a open source / Ruby platform http://www.yigg.de - most stuff is already there!

features

• vote "thumbs up" and "Thumbs down" (like "the right thing to do/not to do")
  • add a "human input check" (anti-bot verification) - maybe only 4 letters
  • one sees only the number of votes before voting oneself - after a vote the relation thumbs up / down is displayed too
• add categories
  • Name of representative
  • type of citation: promise, proposal, statement
• for a promise there could be a date (like in 1 year) when one would be remember to vote again - if the promise was delivered