Proposal: A Direct Democracy Tax Allocation Platform (DDTAP) aka “The Civic Network”

A scalable framework for participatory governance

Note:

All the numbers in this document are fabricated for example purposes. All of the appropriate numbers should be decided by everyone.

Summary

The Direct Democracy Tax Allocation Platform reimagines the Canadian electoral and tax allocation system to give citizens direct control over how their taxes are allocated. This system empowers individuals to assign portions of their tax contributions to specific governmental sectors. Citizens can propose, discuss, and vote on initiatives in which they have assigned any percentage of their taxes. DDTAP establishes a transparent, secure, and participatory model of governance that eliminates the need for political parties while increasing accountability and collective responsibility.

Overview & Purpose

Canada’s representative democracy often alienates citizens from participating in any capacity. Oversight committees are chosen by politicians. Politicians decide their own pay raises while refusing to bargain with unions in good faith. DDTAP introduces a direct democracy layer to replace the traditional electoral process, enabling every tax-paying citizen to:

  • Allocate their taxes by percentage across federal, provincial, and municipal areas
  • Participate directly in creating, discussing, and voting on policies related to the governmental sectors they’ve allocated taxes to
  • Ensure transparency, sincerity, and accountability through verified, public identities and a tamper-proof civic ledger system
  • Continually participate, regardless of income level or prison/incarceration status

This system reframes the citizen as an active policymaker instead of a passive taxpayer.

Core Tax Allocation System

Structure of Tax Allocation

Each year at tax time, users login to the DDTAP to distribute their personal tax contributions and their percentage of the Corporate Tax Pool at each level of government. Municipal taxes can only be allocated to municipal sectors, provincial taxes -> provincial sectors, federal taxes -> federal sectors.

30% Mandatory Allocation(“Critical Infrastructure”)

Reserved for essential services that citizens need to survive and the voting system to be maintained. This would need to be decided in a vote by every Canadian but some examples include:

  • Federal: National defence, cybersecurity, border systems, and civic/electoral infrastructure
  • Provincial: Hospitals, emergency services, and power grids
  • Municipal: Water, waste, transit, and local emergency response

Although the 30% is mandatory it still grants every citizen the same proportional voting and proposal rights in those essential sectors.

70% Flexible Allocation(Citizen’s Choice)

Citizens allocate the remaining 70% to the sectors they value most within that same level of government. So they decide what to do with their federal, provincial, and municipal taxes.

If a citizen does not allocate their remaining 70% taxes within a certain timeframe of the tax allocation deadline then those unallocated taxes are automatically evenly distributed across Critical Infrastructure sectors at that level of government.

Voting by Percentage of Tax Allocated

The 30% and 70% combined allocations establish the citizen’s participation percentage in each sector. Voting and proposal rights are based on the percentage of allocation, not the dollar amount. Each percentage of a person’s tax represents 1 “participation point” in that sector.

Example: If someone directs 20% of their flexible tax to “Roads and Transit,” they have 20 participation points there. In that sector they have 20 votes on any policy making decisions.

Whether a citizen pays $1,000 or $100,000 in taxes, they hold the equal percentage-based influence in the sectors they support. This ensures that the democratic process is directly determined by those who have allocated a percentage of their taxes to a sector.

Corporate taxes are automatically assigned across all areas in proportion to the allocations chosen by citizens that year. Corporations themselves do not allocate their taxes or vote. Each individual citizen decides how corporate taxes are spent when they allocate their own taxes at each level of government.

Transparency & Accountability

Verified Userbase

All users must verify their identity through a deferral ID integration. The ID required and process to verify ID can be decided by citizens at each level of government. This process is to ensure anonymous participation is impossible. As all proposals, discussions, and votes are recorded for all time, this increases accountability.

Public Profiles

Everyone’s username, voting history, and proposal activity are visible to all. Everyone’s legal name is directly connected to their account for only the legal department to see. The legal department will report any hate speech or doxing to Elections Canada to be dealt with accordingly. Transparency, sincerity, and security replace trolling and misinformation. Communities can decide what is best for themselves without outside influence.

Open Civic Ledger (Government-Hosted Distributed Ledger-GHDL)

All votes, allocations, proposals, discussions, and outcomes are recorded on a GHDL. This is a publicly verifiable, append-only system that is jointly maintained by Elections Canada, all provincial/territorial governments, and all municipalities. This ledger ensures tamper-proof transparency with no private intermediaries.

Participation Limits

Only individual citizens may participate in DDTAP. Corporations, organizations, political parties, unions, and AI have no voting, proposing, discussion, or allocation privileges other than that of their individual owners. Corporate taxes are allocated by citizens collectively. Business owners participate only in their personal capacity as private citizens.

In DDTAP, corporate taxes are distributed automatically according to citizens’ allocations, ensuring that corporate money follows the will of the people and not the interests of the company. This guarantees that democratic power rests exclusively with human citizens and not corporations.

Legislative Proposal Mechanism

Proposal Creation:

Only citizens who have allocated any percentage of their taxes to a sector may create proposals in that sector.

Voting:

Only citizens who have tax allocation in that area for the current year may vote on proposals there.

Voting Weight:

Each voter’s influence equals the percentage of their tax allocation to that sector. This ensures that only those with real investment in that area shape its priorities and policies. You may only propose, discuss, and vote on policies in the sectors where you’ve allocated a percentage of your taxes.

Representation:

Any citizen may also choose to appoint a human representative to act on their behalf. The representative should be able to know and accurately represent the person as someone who could explain their views to a guest at a family dinner. With this in mind, each representative should be able to represent up to 90 people maximum. That is roughly the number of people they could genuinely speak to and understand enough to accurately represent them on every issue in a 3 month period. Their role is more of a lawyer or executor fulfilling your desires than they are a politician who does what the party wants. A citizen may assign a different representative for each sector they have allocated taxes.

Representatives cannot be represented by anyone else. All representation relationships are public and recorded for transparency.

Compensation for representation is punishable by law. No representative may receive, request, or accept any form of payment, donation, or material incentive for their service, If the representative comes for dinner they are expected to pay for everyone’s meal.

Representation is a civic trust and an act of voluntary cooperation between peers. It is not meant to be a campaign or a business. It is meant to be like helping your grandparents buy glasses on the internet. You’re just making their process easier. If a representative is found to have accepted compensation, gifts, or financial benefit from any political party or organization then it is treated as Civic Malconduct, Tier 2, subject to immediate suspension of representative status, ledge record of misconduct, and investigation by Elections Canada.

Representatives serve as a practical inclusion mechanism for citizens who may lack the time, patience, or sustained attention to participate in every proposal directly. Some sectors might be incredibly important to them where they propose many policies while other sectors might only interest them because they use services from that sector and would like to support it. Representation ensures even those who do not have the capacity to be active can be represented by those with the capacity to ensure their values are represented.

This acknowledges that the democratic system based on engagement must accommodate both the deeply involved and the intermittently engaged. Representation ensures citizens who do not have the time or capacity to constantly engage can still be accurately represented.

Proposal Lifecycle

  1.  Submission Phase:

Any citizen with tax allocated in a sector can submit a formal proposal (policy, funding idea, reform, etc.) in that sector. All sectors affected by a proposal get access to Public Deliberation and Voting rights on the proposal. Quorum includes all affected sectors. Moderators and jury oversight help decide which sectors are affected.

  1. Public Deliberation Phase(3 months):

Proposals remain open for public review & discussion. Each proposal includes a Comments & Suggestions section that functions like a civic discussion thread. Any citizen with tax allocated in the sectors the proposal affects may participate in the discussion by posting arguments, evidence, or amendments. Moderators ensure conversations remain civil, factual, and focused on policy while their oversight jury ensures unbiased moderation.

Reading & Comprehension(3 months):

Before any citizen can vote on a proposal they must complete a short Reading & Comprehension test created by the proposal’s author and verified or edited by the moderators and oversight jury for accuracy and fairness. It consists of 10 questions about the proposal’s contents. Citizens must answer at least 5 correctly to proceed to vote. The test can be retaken at any time until the voter has passed the test or the proposal is removed. This ensures voters or their representatives have read and understood the proposal.

  1. Voting Phase:

A proposal is eligible from the moment it is created for up to 90 days. All citizens in sectors affected by the proposal may vote in favour or against the proposal. Each citizen’s vote is weighted by the percentage of their tax allocated during that tax year to all sectors affected by each proposal.

Requirements to Pass(90 days):

Quorum: 60% of citizens in affected sectors, measured by the number of individual citizens, including those represented.

Majority: Majority of greater than 50% of weighted votes in favour.

  1. Revisions (30 days):

Any proposal that does not pass quorum and/or does not receive the required votes in favour to pass is removed. After a 30 day cool-down period for revisions the revised proposal may be presented again.

Emergency Protocol

For time-sensitive issues such as public health alerts, natural disasters, security threats, etc., an Emergency Flag can be triggered jointly by the sector’s moderators and citizen oversight jury to allow for an accelerated 72-hour weighted vote that requires a 60% quorum and 60% majority to pass.

Oversight & Governance

Sector Committees

Each sector of government at every level (federal, provincial, municipal) is overseen by:

Elected moderators

Moderators are elected annually to ensure procedural fairness, verify proposals, moderate comment sections, maintain community standards , and prevent burnout. Each sector will have a proportional number of moderators for the population in that sector. Moderators cannot: hold any other form of employment; own or trade stocks or rental properties; moderate more than one sector at a time; cannot be on the citizen oversight jury in the sector they moderate. All moderators earn minimum wage regardless of previous experience and receive no stipends, housing, or transportation allowances.

Citizen Oversight Jury

The Citizen oversight Jury serves as a rotating oversight body to monitor moderation and procedural fairness. The Jury is randomly selected from volunteers who opt-in each year at tax time. Each juror serves a 3 month term rotating on a staggered schedule. Jurors are restricted from serving in more than one oversight body at a time. After serving, jurors return to the back of the queue until everyone in the pool has had an opportunity with priority going to those who have served the fewest times. Jurors are unpaid volunteers, fulfilling civic duty.

Accessibility

Library and Public Access

Each sector of government must maintain secure, private DDTAP access points in public libraries or civic centres for citizens without access to personal devices.

Ethics & Integrity

All committee and jury deliberations and communications on the DDTAP are recorded and published for transparency. Any misconduct like data tampering, bias, manipulation, or noncompliance will result in immediate suspension and removal of all moderator responsibilities followed by an automatic investigation conducted by Elections Canada. Moderators serve solely as facilitators of process and compliance, not as representatives or decision makers. All disciplinary actions are logged publicly to the ledger for accountability.

Abusing the ability to report a moderator will equally not be tolerated. Abuse of the system could lead to fines or jail depending on the Elections Canada investigation. This ensures that anyone abusing the system, moderator or citizen, is held accountable.

Rules of Conduct and Civil Speech Boundaries

Foundational Principles

  1. Freedom of Expression

Every citizen retains the right to speak, comment, debate, and criticize within DDTAP. Expression is protected under Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms unless it crosses into categories explicitly not protected by law.

  1. Equal Voice, Equal Dignity

All participants are entitled to respectful treatment. Speech that targets identity rather than argument undermines deliberative equality and it is treated as civic misconduct like in any court.

  1. Process-Based Limits

DDTAP never restricts content for political disagreement, criticism of the government, satire, or unpopular opinion. Sanctions address how a citizen behaves, not which viewpoint is held.

Protected Expression

  1. Policy debate, advocacy, or criticism of any institution or policy
  2. Expression of belief, religion, philosophy, or political stance
  3. Peaceful disagreement or advocacy for legal reform
  4. Artistic, comedic, or rhetorical speech not intended to cause harm
  5. Strong language directed at ideas, not at identity

Unprotected and Prohibited Conduct

Category

Definition

Examples

Hate Propaganda

Willfully promoting hatred or violence toward an identifiable group

“All [X group] should be eliminated.”

Threats & Incitement

Advocacy or encouragement of imminent violent action or targeted harm

“Let’s go attack them tonight”

Defamation & False Accusation

Knowingly false claims that harm reputation

“[X] stole funds from DDTAP”

Harassment & Targeted Abuse

Repeated or severe intimidation, demeaning, or stalking behaviour

Slurs, dog-piling, or repeated personal jabs

Malicious Disinformation

Fabricated evidence or impersonation meant to deceive civic deliberation

Fake ledger screenshots; Ai-forged data.

Doxing & Privacy Breaches

Posting or threatening to post private information

“Here’s their address”

Obstruction & Manipulation

Spam, brigading, or vote tampering that distorts outcomes

Using another citizen’s account without properly representing them

Contextual Rule: Opinion vs. Hate

A protected opinion becomes unprotected hate speech when intent, target, or effect crosses a civic harm threshold:

Factor

Protected Opinion

Unprotected Hate

Intent

Express belief or critique

Hostility or dehumanization of the group you disagree with

Target

Policies, ideas, or behaviours

Identity traits of the group you  disagree with

Effect

Invite debate or reform

Incite exclusion or violence of the group you disagree with

Language

Factual, satirical, or argumentative

Derogatory, violent, or demeaning to the group you disagree with

Parliamentary Style Conduct Standards

  1. Relevance: Remarks must relate to the active proposal or area
  2. Civility: Personal attacks, ridicule, or contemptuous gestures are logged as infractions
  3. Veracity: Citizen must not knowingly post false or fabricated material
  4. Transparency: Conflicts of interest must be declared and on record
  5. Order: Repeated disruption after warning constitutes Civic Malconduct Tier 1.

Enforcement & Consequences

Tier

Description

Consequence

Duration/Remedy

Tier 1

Hate, threats, harassment, doxxing, or coordinated attacks

Public ledger flag; 14 day comment pause in affected proposals; Elections Canada investigation

As determined by Elections Canada

Tier 2

Bribery, paid representation, or evidence tampering

Immediate suspension of roles; Elections Canada investigation

As determined by Elections Canada

Tier 3

Spam, brigading, or vote fraud

Account verification reset; Elections Canada Investigation

As determined by Elections Canada

Criminal acts are referred to law enforcement and other penalties determined by an Elections Canada investigation. Civic records of events remain public.

Speech Preservation

Even during penalties or investigations a citizen’s right to propose and vote on proposals remains intact. Commenting may pause temporarily for safety or deescalation. No speech is ever erased; all moderated actions remain part of the civic ledger. No citizen shall lose their right to speak, propose, or vote within DDTAP because of misconduct.

Data Protection & Anti-Doxxing Safeguards

Civic Data Security Layer

Before any citizen-generated content (proposals, comments, etc.) is published to the Government Hosted Distributed Ledger (GHDL). It passes through a Civic Data Security Layer (CDSL). The CDSL acts as a preprocessing buffer designed to detect, redact, and quarantine sensitive personal information. The CDSL automatically identifies and removes personal information like addresses, phone numbers, emails, SINs, IDs, etc. This layer operates before permanent ledger recording to ensure no sensitive data makes it on the GHDL.

Human Oversight Review

Flagged posts enter a quarantine buffer where moderators and oversight jurors confirm whether redactions are valid or maliciously triggered. Content is written to the GHDL in its sanitized form only after it is cleared. Original unredacted submissions are cryptographically archived under restricted access for use only in misconduct investigations.

Anti-Doxxing Enforcement

Deliberate attempts to post or circulate another person’s private information, including addresses, personal identifiers, etc., are classified as Tier 1 Civic Malconduct. Penalties include:

  • immediate ledger notice and content removal
  • permanent public misconduct flag attached to the violators civic record
  • Election Canada Investigation
  • automatic referral to law enforcement under Canada’s digital privacy and harassment laws
  • fines and/or imprisonment depending on severity and harm
  • inability to apply for moderation or jury roles

Source Verification & Fact Integrity System

Source Requests

Any citizen with tax allocated in a sector may click “Request Source” under a statement, claim, or proposal comment. The original author is notified and may add a source within 72 hours. During this period the statement is flagged as “Unverified Claim - Awaiting Source.” If a source is not added then the statement is flagged as “Unverified Claim - Opinion.” At any point the author or another citizen may add a source and the statement will be flagged as “Verified - Source: [Source Author: Source Title (source link)]”

Flagged as Opinion (Default State)

If no verifiable source is provided then the statement remains flagged as “Unverified Claim - Opinion.” Opinion-flagged posts remain visible and are marked with a grey banner that says “Unverified Claim - Opinion.”

Source Verification

When a source author is added, moderators and oversight jurors review them for authenticity and credibility. Acceptable sources include: peer reviewed research, government data, reputable journalism, first hand documentation.

Flagged as Sourced

Once the source is verified then the statement is relabeled: “Verified - Source: [Source Author: Source Title (source link)].”

Disputed Sources

If a source is later disproven or withdrawn then the statement will be flagged as “Unverified Claim - Opinion” until a new source is provided.

Technological Infrastructure

Secure Identity Verification:

CRA-linked sign-in with multi-factor authentication

Government-Hosted Distributed Ledger (GHDL):

A nationwide, permissioned network maintained by federal, provincial.territorial, and all municipal governments.

Transparency Tools:

Detect manipulation, misinformation, hate speech, and coordinated inauthentic behavior within proposal discussions

Public Comment Architecture:

Each proposal includes threaded discussions, voting, moderation tools, and permanent archiving for civic research

Open-Source Code (Civic / Electoral Infrastructure):

The platform code is fully open-source. Citizens who allocated taxes to this area may propose upgrades or new features. Each approved proposal then creates a public bounty for developers to submit their solutions. Submitted code improvements are voted on by those with taxes allocated in that sector.

Benefits & Impacts

Democratic Renewal

This new system empowers citizens as active fiscal and policy agents. It ends the partisan gridlock by removing political parties from the equation. The new system fosters civic literacy and engagement through discussion-based policymaking. The DDTAP replaces political parties and career politicians with direct, citizen-based governance. DDTAP eliminates opaque lobbying and backroom politics. It adds public visibility to every tax dollar, proposal, and debate.

Economic Efficiency:

Tax allocations reflect real public demand, improving budget efficiency. Sectors with strong public support receive proportionate resources and citizen oversight. Corporate taxes serve the public good directly with citizens determining how that money is spent rather than lobbyists.

All operating costs for DDTAP, including the GHDL, moderation, administration, and Elections Canada investigations are covered by funds previously allocated to political salaries, stipends, vehicles, and other government luxuries. These redirected funds sustain the platform, pay moderators minimum wage, and cover oversight and transparency operations.

Implementation Plan

Phase

Duration

Description

Pilot Program

1-2 years

Start with a few MLAs/MPs who are willing to volunteer to listen to the results from citizens willing to test the DDTAP in their ridings.

Expansion

3-5 years

Extend the system to replace provincial government

Legislative Transition

5-10 years

Conduct a constitutional amendment or national referendum to officially replace the partisan, representative model with DDTAP’s direct democracy structure

TL;DR:

The DDTAP is a direct democracy platform that is designed to replace politicians. Citizens log in and decide where they want their taxes to go every year at tax time. Depending on where they put their taxes they get percentage points to use for voting. If they put points into a sector, they can create proposals, participate in discussions and vote on proposals in that sector. Each citizen’s vote is worth the percentage points they put into that sector.

This document covers the details of how this works and how we can make it happen.