---
title: MiVote
type: platform
status: deregistered
country: AU
website: https://web.archive.org/web/20190718233549/https://www.mivote.org.au/
logo: /assets/org-logos/mivote.png
contact:
  checked: 2026-08-02
  email: admin@mivote.org.au
  note: Historical contact — MiVote is defunct; address unlikely to still be monitored.
  source: MiVote's own "Values & Vision" PDF (see Links below), sourced via Wayback
    Machine snapshot of mivote.org.au
summary: An Australian civic technology platform and political party (2014–c.2019)
  that presented citizens with four structured policy destinations per issue — not
  yes/no polls — backed by a research and ethics pipeline designed to produce informed,
  non-ideological votes that constitutionally bound its Senate candidates.
concepts:
- direct-democracy
- e-government
- representative-democracy
events:
- date: '2017-02-11'
  title: MiVote app publicly launched in Australia with its first test vote
  url: https://medium.com/mivote/new-model-of-democracy-passes-first-test-c9a3db8da2a1
  quote: MiVote launched its world-leading democratic model in February with a test
    vote asking Australians how they want to participate in the country’s decision-making
    process.
  proof_level: high
  url_checked: '2026-08-10'
  notable: true
- date: '2019-01-01'
  title: Australian party deregistered before the 2019 federal election, without electing
    any senators
  url: https://www.designingopendemocracy.com/blog/2021/08/07/podcast-catching-up-with-adam-jacoby-founder-of-mivote/
  quote: The Australian party deregistered around 2019; the movement and technology
    continued under a different structure.
  proof_level: high
  url_checked: '2026-08-10'
  notable: true
last_checked: '2026-08-02'
contributors:
- BrianKhuu
---

![MiVote logo](mivote-mark.png)

MiVote was an Australian civic technology initiative and political party founded by Adam Jacoby, launched as an initiative of [Centre for the Future](#key-people) — a "globally networked enterprise" led by futurist Dr Richard Hames. Its core argument was that representative democracy as currently practised is structurally broken: representatives make thousands of decisions over four years based on a single election, party ideology overrides constituent preferences, and citizens are never meaningfully consulted on individual issues. MiVote's own materials cited a 2006 ABS finding that political party membership represented just 1.3% of the Australian adult population — the rationale being that the other 98.7% had no equivalent channel to shape policy outside election day. The organisation deregistered around 2019 without achieving its stated goal of electing senators.

## Key people

- **Adam Jacoby** — Director, Centre for the Future, and author of MiVote's founding "Values & Vision" document. Described in that document as "a serial innovator with a twenty-year global history of starting fast growth businesses in sport, information and media," leading the MiVote movement. Later took the technology to the UK as MiVote Technologies — see [What came after](#what-came-after) below.
- **Dr Richard Hames** — CEO of Centre for the Future and sponsor of MiVote. A "philosopher-activist" whose stated mission was "to make the world work better for everyone," working on "radically disruptive ideas" and "better social architectures for organising, governing and leading."

## The four-destination model

Where most digital democracy platforms ask citizens to vote yes or no on legislation, MiVote framed each issue as a choice between **four policy destinations** — broad directional positions that citizens could genuinely choose between before legislation was written. The destinations were designed to reflect the real range of considered positions on an issue rather than the binary adversarial framing of parliamentary debate.

For asylum seeker policy, for example, the four destinations were: primarily humanitarian, primarily national security, financially pragmatic, and international diplomacy. Each destination was explained in enough depth that a voter could understand what choosing it would mean in practice.

The rationale: legislation should follow from a known destination, not the other way around. Writing legislation before knowing what outcome citizens want produces policy shaped by whoever drafts the bill rather than by genuine public preference.

## The information pipeline

MiVote built a structured process to produce the information presented to voters on each issue:

1. **University research** — academic sourcing of data and evidence relevant to the issue
2. **Domain expert working groups** — practitioners (public servants, industry specialists, frontline workers) providing ground-level context
3. **Advisory committees** — permanent panels of under-represented community voices with a standing seat in every policy conversation: indigenous communities, gender equity, people without internet access, and others
4. **Ethics committee** — reviewed all materials before publication to ensure unbiased language and framing; nothing could reach voters without sign-off

The intention was that by the time a voter saw the four destinations and their supporting information, the material had been validated for accuracy and reviewed for ideological tilt. Voters could read a brief summary or cascade down to source documentation.

## Platform principles

**No ideology.** MiVote explicitly rejected left/right framing. The argument was that no single world view has the answer to every challenge, so policy decisions should start from evidence and work toward the best available outcome, not from a fixed ideological position.

**No corporate or interest group donations.** MiVote's constitution prohibited donations from businesses, unions, or interest groups — individual donors only. By late 2016 the movement had raised close to $1 million from individual contributions.

**60% supermajority threshold.** A simple majority (51%+1) was considered insufficient. MiVote required 60% agreement on a destination before it became the official position. If fewer than 25% of members voted on an issue, the result went to a run-off process rather than forming policy. Dynamic re-voting was built in: if membership grew by 50% since a vote was taken, the vote had to be re-run.

**Mandatory mandate.** Elected senators were constitutionally required to vote according to the majority position of MiVote members — no negotiation, no horse-trading. If members had not yet voted on an issue, the senator was required to say so publicly rather than defaulting to an ideological position.

**Term limits.** Two terms maximum; senators were required to mentor their successors.

**Lower voting age.** Movement membership was open to every citizen aged 16 and over, regardless of voting background, prior party membership, or ideology — a deliberate departure from the standard voting age of 18.

**Equality of opportunity and meritocracy.** MiVote's values framing held that success should be determined by capability rather than social status, inherited wealth, gender, race, religion, or sexual preference — explicitly distinguishing equality of *opportunity* from equality of *outcome*.

**Secular commitment.** MiVote stated that religion had no place in policy creation, while welcoming members from all faiths and belief systems.

## 2018 goals

At the December 2016 Future Assembly presentation, MiVote set public targets for the 2019 federal election: three senators elected, one million members, and 5,000 volunteers. For context, the combined formal membership of all major Australian parties at the time was approximately 81,000. These goals were not achieved. The Australian party deregistered before the 2019 election.

## What came after

The movement and its technology did not end with the Australian party's deregistration. In a [2021 catch-up interview with DOD](../../blog/posts/2021-08-07-podcast.md), founder Adam Jacoby described spinning the in-house voting technology out as a separate company (Horizon State) — a decision he called "the single worst commercial decision I've ever made" — then rebuilding it in-house as MiVote Technologies and relocating to the UK under the government's Entrepreneurs Programme. He also reported that across five or six early Australian votes, the 60% consensus threshold was *always* reached, which he offers as evidence that multi-choice, well-informed voting can produce consensus even in a polarised environment.

## Links

- Website: [mivote.org.au](https://web.archive.org/web/20190718233549/https://www.mivote.org.au/) *(archived, last known snapshot)*
- Video: [Adam Jacoby presents MiVote at Future Assembly, December 2016](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDPn9QwKi6s) *(primary source for the "four-destination model," "information pipeline," and "platform principles" sections above; transcript is AI-generated and may contain transcription errors)*
- Document: [MiVote Values & Vision](mivote-values-vision.pdf) *(MiVote's own founding document, sourced via Wayback Machine — primary source for the "Key people" section, the ABS 1.3% statistic, the logo, and the lower-voting-age/equality-of-opportunity/secular-commitment principles above)*

## See also

- [Direct Democracy](../concepts/direct-democracy.md)
- [E-Government](../concepts/e-government.md)
- [Representative Democracy](../concepts/representative-democracy.md)
- [Flux Party](flux-party.md)
- [Digipol](digipol.md)
- [Evaluating Democracy Reform Proposals](../../blog/posts/2018-05-03.md) — Nick Merange's comparative scoring of Flux, MiVote, Online Direct Democracy, and Citizens' Juries
- [Catching up with Adam Jacoby (2021 podcast)](../../blog/posts/2021-08-07-podcast.md) — the later UK chapter, the Horizon State lesson, and the 60% consensus finding