In Part 1 of the PeopleCount.org story, I shared how the idea of PeopleCount.org formed. What if we could have a better kind of survey — one that was more expressive and where the user could update it as the issues changed? What would a world look like if we all could vote for what we want? The next step was to bring the idea into the world and build a solution.

I began telling lots of people about the idea. Three friends were especially interested and agreed to be on my board. In discussions, we realized forming a business instead of a non-profit would allow us more flexibility and a greater chance of getting established. We needed to name the project, but lots of good names were already taken. Finally, I settled on Democracy for the 3rd Millennium, and bought the domain Democracy3M.org. The next step was to flesh out the solution and write the business plan.  

My vision is that we discover what we collectively want and move forward. To find that kind of agreement, I realized the surveys will have to dig deeper than questions we typically see in polls. We’ll need to vote on actual solutions, not just tell our representatives to get moving on, say, “campaign finance reform,” or they’d lapse into philosophical disagreements and name-calling like they do now. Representatives almost never move forward on new solutions that aren’t yet popular, so even the best solutions take a long time to make it to the mainstream. Our questions could easily ask about new solutions and build popular support quickly. Once areas are found, we can use the results to guide government. Representatives can move forward with confidence.

To fund the business, we can sell deeper access to the results, omitting people’s names and addresses. Customers can look to see how many people like one idea and not another, or see if younger voters like a particular solution, suggesting a phased-in approach is wanted. Both incumbents and candidates would probably be interested. Similarly, media, research organizations, special interests and parties might be interested.

I came up with the term political profile. Like your personal and professional profile on LinkedIn, you can always update or change your political profile.

I realized our solution could facilitate representatives being accountable. People could see the areas of agreement and the relevant voting records of representatives. Being accountable includes representatives giving an account of their achievements. As a paid service, the website could distribute reports from them to the constituents who are interested. Similarly, candidates could use this service to differentiate themselves.

From September 2011 through January 2012 I shared the idea, refined it, networked some, and wrote a business plan. During the winter and spring, I networked more and tried to find a partner. But I needed more time, especially during working hours. Finally, I quit my job and in June began working on the project full-time.

Toward the end of June, I discovered icount.com. icount’s business is to make governments accessible over the Web, with features like online meetings, email to officials, petitions and polls. They ensure users live where they say they live so officials know they’re dealing with real constituents. Dedicated to empowering people to be involved in government, they quickly embraced the ideas of Democracy3M and we began working together. In July, I worked on the first profiles and icount.com modified their surveys to work for my purposes.

By August, we were close to launching. However, there was still a big problem: icount’s website wasn’t suitable for the Democracy3M user, and it didn’t make sense to change it until we had a large user base — and funding. Most icount users don’t use the icount.com website — they access the services through the website of their government, so the government makes pages suitable for their own needs. We decided it’d be best if I did similarly, using my own site.

The name Democracy3M had served its purpose, but we needed a name that was easier to remember. Inspired by “icount”, I chose the name PeopleCount and bought the domain name PeopleCount.org. In early September, I created a simple website for the platform and began testing. Toward the middle of the month, the feedback stabilized. We were almost ready.

What do you think of the PeopleCount.org story? Can you see platform bridging the gap between the government and the people?

If you missed it, check out Part 1 of the PeopleCount.org story here.