There are different participatory instruments in Switzerland which allow citizens to put new issues on the policy agenda. The focus of the research was to classify them into three basic categories: 1) petition 2) agenda initiative and 3) citizens‘ initiative. E-collecting mechanism can depend on the specifity of used instruments (policy impact of an instrument), as well as the insitutionalisation of the instrument (new, old). Cases from e.g. Finland, Latvia, Switzerland, .. show different systems for e-collecting.

1. Scaling Up Democracy with E­Collecting?
Uwe Serdült
Centre for Democracy Studies Aarau (ZDA)
at the University of Zurich, Switzerland

2. Content
●
Starting Point: Switzerland – a DD country with
internet voting but no e­collecting
●
E­Collecting Hypotheses
●
A Few Cases (Input, Throughput and Output)
●
Conclusion

3. The Swiss Internet Voting Experience
0
10
20
30
40
50
Geneva
Neuchâtel
Zurich
Swiss residents

4. The Swiss Internet Voting Experience
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Argovia
Basel-City
Bern
Fribourg
Geneva
Lucerne
Neuchâtel
St. Gallen
Thurgau
Zurich
Expatriates

5. Hypotheses
INSTRUMENT
[Petition, Agenda Initiative,
Citizen Initiative]
INSTITUTIONALISATION
[old, new]
E­COLLECTING
[input, throughput, output]

6. Germany
●
E­Petition introduced in 2005 based on the Scottish
model and software
●
Own software since 2008 and new system since 2012
●
Elaborate input to petition committee of German
Parliament (secure e­ID identification since 2014)
●
Public petitions with an endorsement of 50'000
individuals within 4 weeks can be debated in the
committee (petitioner can present and participate)
●
Petition committee has a lot of discretion
●
Some issues got wider media attention or parliamentary
hearings.
●
German Länder starting to copy national system.

7. Australia
●
Three out of six states allow for e­petitions. Queensland
as the most advanced since 2003.
●
Signing up is simple.
●
However, an MP must sponsor the petition.
●
Classical petition without any obligations for
Parliament.
●
More than 800 petitions in Queensland so far.
●
Some examples of indirect policy consequences can be
detected.

8. Finland
●
Indirect consequence of the ECI
●
Agenda initiative with e­collecting since 2012 run on a
platform administered by the Ministry of Justice.
●
With 50'000 signatures within 6 months the initiative
needs to be debated and voted upon by Parliament.
●
Signature collection both offline and online, on the
official website but also on private, certified platforms,
for example www.avoinministerio.fi crowd­sourced →
legislation.
●
Successful platform with concrete results

9. Sweden
●
Citizens' initiatives with a binding outcome exist on the
local level (signatures from 10% of electorate needed).
However, e­collection of signatures is not allowed.
●
In 2013 six local governments out of 290 offered e­
petition systems.
●
Most prominent example is the City of Malmö: very
simple design, low threshold (100 signatures, no time
limit). Channel is used and established (on average 85
initiatives launched per year, number of signatures on
the rise).
●
Other municipalities seem to be rather hesitant.

10. Switzerland and the USA
●
Both countries have vibrant practice of referendum
votes, Switzerland on all three state levels.
●
In Switzerland, no serious attempt to implement e­
collecting (or e­petitions). However, political actors
started bypass mechanism with online forms.
●
In several US states there were attempts to introduce e­
collecting of signatures leading to a binding referendum
vote. Some states have explicitly prohibited e­
collecting.
●
No evidence found for e­petitions on the state level in
the USA.

11. Pattern between consequentiality of the
instrument and e­collecting
USA, CH, S
D, AUS
FI, LAT
E­collecting
Petition, Agenda I, Referendum
resilience

12. Thank you!