Vasilis Vlachokyriakos, Paul Dunphy, Nick Tayler, Rob Comber, Patrick Oivier – Unpicking the design space of e-­Voting for Participation


Published on

#CeDEM13 Day 2 afternoon, Reflections, Main Hall, Chair: Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen

Published in: News & Politics
  • 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

No notes for slide

Vasilis Vlachokyriakos, Paul Dunphy, Nick Tayler, Rob Comber, Patrick Oivier – Unpicking the design space of e-­Voting for Participation

  1. 1. Unpicking the design space of e-Voting forParticipationV. Vlachokyriakos, P. Dunphy, N. Taylor, R. Comber, P. OlivierCulture Lab, Newcastle University
  2. 2. Technology to facilitate access to the voting apparatus, fail to motivate participationeffectively.Technology for ParticipationDoes providing additional channels of participation increase participation in the longrun?•  Still an open research question, however recent studies indicate that it doesn t•  Lost social pressure to vote•  Experience related issues – ritual of voting•  Voting for personal interests instead of voting for the common goodWhat are the design requirements of voting systems to provoke the constructs ofparticipation?
  3. 3. FAIRNESSELIGIBILITYSECRECYEXPRESSIONSuffrageVote WeightingAccessibility  Verifiability  Coercion  Results EmbargoNomination phaseVote transferringVote revocationNumber of votesType of votingThe design space of voting: configuring the attributes of voting systems forparticipation.Designing E-VotingThe design space of votingPolling duration
  4. 4. Who is eligible to vote? Who is eligible to be elected?EligibilityManaging electoral rollWith e-voting we have the opportunity to rethink the way the electoral roll is managed and published to provokesocial pressure for participation.e.g. Increase of participation in national elections in the US by placing banner messages on users facebookprofiles3.Polling durationHow the polling duration affects participation.3. Bond, R. M., Fariss, C., Jones, J., Kramer, A., Marlow, C., Settle, J., & Fowler, J. (2012). A 61-million-personexperiment in social influence and political mobilization. NATURE .
  5. 5. FairnessVote weighting (one person – one vote)How vote weighting can make power structures visible and question them?AccessibilityAll the eligible participants have access to the voting apparatus. Usability considerations.VerifiabilitySocial Verifiability?
  6. 6. SecrecyCoercionSecret ballot: when a voter sell his vote, no documents are provided to verify that the vote has been cast acertain way.How we can configure the secret ballot to provoke participation?Results embargoPublication of interim results.How publication of interim results can affect participation?Refers to whether casted votes and results are visible
  7. 7. The way the user is permitted to express their preferenceExpressionNomination phaseRelated to who is eligible to be elected and when he can be nominated for election.Blank and spoiled ballots may indicate that the voting system does not allow the voters to effectively expressthemselves.Vote transferringIssues related to the delegation of votes.Vote revocationIssues related with revoking casted votes.Number of votesNumbers of votes allowed per participant.Type of votingApproval voting or disapproval voting.
  8. 8. DiscussionTechnological evolution and the vibrant discussion around the use of technology fordemocracy is an opportunity to rethink how we practice voting.Provoke the social settings for participation and deliberation instead of simply making iteasier for people to vote.
  9. 9. Thanks!Questions?