Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
  • Save
Vasilis Vlachokyriakos, Exploring E-­Voting for Participation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Vasilis Vlachokyriakos, Exploring E-­Voting for Participation


#CeDEM13 Day3, PhD Colloquium, SE 3.5, Chair: Peter Parycek, Christina Hainzl

#CeDEM13 Day3, PhD Colloquium, SE 3.5, Chair: Peter Parycek, Christina Hainzl

Published in Business , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Exploring E-Voting for ParticipationV. Vlachokyriakos, Culture Lab, Newcastle University
  • 2. How can we design technologies to facilitate democratic practices?Facilitating Democracy through Technology
  • 3. Technology to facilitate access to the voting apparatus, fail to motivate participationeffectively.Technology for Participation
  • 4. E-ParticipationEnhance citizens’ involvement in politics with the aid of technologyProvision ofinformationConsultationprocesse-Deliberatione-CampaigningActione-Petitione-Voting
  • 5. MajoritarianMadisonianDeliberativeNon-DeliberativeDirect RepresentativeImpact on Democracy*  Fishkin,  James  S.  Democracy  and  delibera8on:  New  direc8ons  for  democra8c  reform.  Vol.  217.  New  Haven:  Yale  University  Press,  1991.  Figure: The forms of democracy*
  • 6. Methodology: Technology probes*Technology probes are a specific type of deployed research prototypes.Social Science goal: To collect data about the use and users of technology in a realworld setting.Engineering goal: To field-test the technology.Design goal: Inspire users and researchers to think of new technology ideas byreflecting upon the usage of the probes.* Hutchinson, H. et al. 2003. Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. Proceedings of the SIGCHIconference on Human factors in computing systems (2003), 17–24.
  • 7. Exploring the Design Space of VotingExploring the effects of voting attributes on participation
  • 8. The Design Space of Voting** Vlachokyriakos, V. et al. 2013. Unpicking the design space of e-Voting for Participation. Conference for E-Democracyand Open Government. (2013).FAIRNESSELIGIBILITYSECRECYEXPRESSIONSuffrageVote WeightingAccessibility  Verifiability  Coercion  Results EmbargoNomination phaseVote transferringVote revocationNumber of votesType of votingThe design space of votingPolling duration
  • 9. BallotShare: Exploring the Design space of VotingEligibility Fairness Secrecy ExpressionRevocable votes ü  ü Negative voting ü Open nomination ü  ü Public vote casts ü Intermediate results ü Ballot sharing ü  ü  ü Multiple voting ü  ü Ballot transferring ü  ü  ü Unpicking the design space of e-voting to explore the effect that some determinants ofbehavior can have on voting behaviors and participation
  • 10. BallotShare: Exploring the Design space of VotingStaff and postgraduate students participated in polls ranging from social activities toother spontaneous decisions such as naming research projects that were required.Study16 participants5 weeks study8 created polls à 5 weekly scheduled polls and 3 created by request0  2  4  6  8  10  12  14  16  18  Mean  Ac8ons  per  Par8cipant   Ac8ve  Par8cipants  
  • 11. 0%  10%  20%  30%  40%  50%  60%  70%  80%  90%  100%  Percentage  Votes   Revoca8on   Comments     Share  ballots   Added  op8ons    BallotShare: Exploring the Design space of VotingFeatures of the voting system and use
  • 12. 13 completed questionnaires10 semi-structured interviewsThemes emerged from hybrid thematic analysis:•  Efficacy: self-efficacy, collective efficacy the most influential construct ofparticipation•  Discussions: provoked participation, engaged participants with thesystem•  Engagement: collocation of participants, discussions in the group•  Empowerment•  Tactics and influence•  Privacy and secrecy•  Voting attitudesBallotShare: Exploring the Design space of Voting
  • 13. Revisiting the relation between voting and deliberation.Using e-voting to facilitate and provoke deliberation rather than as the ending point ofa deliberative process.1.  Workshops with members of the University of the Third Age (U3A) in the UK.2.  Collaborating with local communities in designing and testing technology forparticipation and effective deliberationVoting and Deliberation
  • 14. Questions?