Presented on the first e-Democracy Conference in 2010.

1. The Path to eDemocracy
Lessons Learnt
Alexander Prosser

2. http://e-voting.at
Transaction
Communication
Information
2

3. http://e-voting.at
Transaction - decision
Transaction -
agenda setting
Structured deliberation
Unstructured deliberation
Specific information
General information
3

4. http://e-voting.at
Success indicators of an eDemocracy project:
 Scalability
 Impact
 Sustainability
(of the instrument – not the decision as such)
4

5. http://e-voting.at
Transaction - decision
Scalability:
Transaction -
agenda setting
Structured deliberation
Unstructured deliberation
Specific information Define participants, authentication
General information 
5

6. http://e-voting.at
Not to be underrated
Transaction - decision
Scalability:
Example environmental information:
Transaction -
agenda setting
1. EU guidelines (INSPIRE, Aarhus Convention)
2. Complex data structures and reconciliation
3. Automated, deliberation
Structured constant update
4. Easy to use, accessible to non-expert user
Unstructured deliberation
Specific information Define participants, authentication
General information 
6

7. http://e-voting.at
Means of authentication:
Transaction - decision 
Scalability:
Transaction - Define particip.,
1. Digital signature cards (little acceptance thus
agenda setting authentication
far, separate hardware, often complex to
install)

2. Citizen logindeliberation issues, central?)
Structured (distribution
3. Passort/Medicare/ID number (forgery? reuse?)
4. Unstructured deliberation Analysis
Biometry (illicit reuse in remote scenarios?)
Specific information Define participants, authentication
General information 
7

8. http://e-voting.at
Transaction - decision
Scalability:
Transaction -
agenda setting
Structured deliberation 
Unstructured deliberation Analysis
Specific information Define participants, authentication
General information 
8

9. http://e-voting.at
Analysis of Unstructured Deliberation:

1. FewTransaction -=> manual analysis is
participants decision
Scalability:
possibleTransaction -
=> Legitimization problem particip.,
Define
2. Large participation => only automated
agenda setting authentication
=> Legitimization problem
Structured deliberation 
Unstructured deliberation Analysis
Specific information Define participants, authentication
General information 
9

10. http://e-voting.at
Transaction - decision 
Scalability:
Transaction - Define particip.,
agenda setting authentication
Structured deliberation 
Unstructured deliberation Analysis
Specific information Define participants, authentication
General information 
10

11. http://e-voting.at
Transaction - decision 
Impact:
Transaction - Participation,
agenda setting credibility
Structured deliberation Both depend on
Participation ratio and
Unstructured deliberation transparent analysis
Specific information Depends on the role in the process
General information 
11

12. http://e-voting.at
Transaction - decision
Sustainability: ()
Transaction -
agenda setting
Structured deliberation
Goal ?
Unstructured deliberation
Specific information Goal ?
General information 
12

13. http://e-voting.at
Transaction - decision
Sustainability: ()
Transaction -
agenda setting
If itStructured deliberation
is a goal:
1. Participants disenfranchised ?
Participatory system introduction ?
2.Unstructured deliberation Goal
Example e-voting pilot 2009 in Austria:
- Done against the wish of the target group
Specific information
- < 1% participated ?
Goal
- Will not be repeated => Failure
General information 
13

14. http://e-voting.at
Q:
What has been the biggest eDemocracy platform in
Austria with high impact, which – thus far – seems to be
sustainable ?
A: Government-driven e-voting ?
eQuestions to MPs ?
eDeliberation about municipality projects ?
No …
14

15. http://e-voting.at
15

16. http://e-voting.at
„OurUni.at“
Platform for students demanding
more money for education and
a reversial from the Bachelor/
Master/PhD scheme to the scheme
of Master/Dr.
Not .gov-driven
16

17. http://e-voting.at
“OurUni.at”:
 Scalable 
 30.000 Facebook friends
 120.000+ tweets
 Uses standard-software social media
(Facebook, ustream, twitter, youtube, …)
 Problem: User identification
That is where a .gov-driven platform is needed
17

18. http://e-voting.at
“OurUni.at”:
 Impact 
 Media quotes
 Agenda setting (“we create opinions”)
 Arguably the best-known eDemocracy platform
in Austria
18

19. http://e-voting.at
“OurUni.at”:
 Sustainability ?
 Has been active since Oct. 2009
 Has been growing since Oct. 2009
 Issue: No means for decision making
only information dissemination and deliberation
Why: Identification issue
=> No reliable results in decision making possible
19

20. http://e-voting.at
What makes a good eDemocracy platform ?
 A concrete need with value-added
 A participatory approach
 Search for groups, where the electronic media
has large and immediate value-added:
=> Independent of time
=> Independent of place
20

21. http://e-voting.at
What makes a good eDemocracy platform ?
 Easy access, no prohibitive technologies
 No additional hardware
 Integration of Web 2.0 platforms
(also keeps costs down)
 Citizen/user identification scheme
=> Credibility
21

22. http://e-voting.at
What makes a good eDemocracy platform ?
 Information, deliberation and decision making
as a goal, but …
 … a step-wise approach to get people’s “buy-in”
 Start small, get a good feed-back and grow
22

23. http://e-voting.at
Engagement level
Transaction Move to decision-
making
Broader audience, General audience
Deliberation in depth services
Introduce
authentication
Information Quick wins
Number of participants
23

24. http://e-voting.at
Alexander Prosser
Univ. Economics and Business, Vienna
prosser@wu.ac.at
http://e-voting.at
24