Vasilis Vlachokyriakos, Paul Dunphy, Nick Tayler, Rob Comber, Patrick Oivier – Unpicking the design space of e-Voting for Participation
•
0 gostou•795 visualizações
#CeDEM13 Day 2 afternoon, Reflections, Main Hall, Chair: Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Semelhante a Vasilis Vlachokyriakos, Paul Dunphy, Nick Tayler, Rob Comber, Patrick Oivier – Unpicking the design space of e-Voting for Participation
Semelhante a Vasilis Vlachokyriakos, Paul Dunphy, Nick Tayler, Rob Comber, Patrick Oivier – Unpicking the design space of e-Voting for Participation (20)
Mais de Danube University Krems, Centre for E-Governance
Mais de Danube University Krems, Centre for E-Governance (20)
Último
Último (20)
Vasilis Vlachokyriakos, Paul Dunphy, Nick Tayler, Rob Comber, Patrick Oivier – Unpicking the design space of e-Voting for Participation
- 1. Unpicking the design space of e-Voting for Participation V. Vlachokyriakos, P. Dunphy, N. Taylor, R. Comber, P. Olivier Culture Lab, Newcastle University
- 2. Technology to facilitate access to the voting apparatus, fail to motivate participation effectively. Technology for Participation Does providing additional channels of participation increase participation in the long run? • 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 good What are the design requirements of voting systems to provoke the constructs of participation?
- 3. FAIRNESS ELIGIBILITY SECRECY EXPRESSION Suffrage Vote Weighting Accessibility Verifiability Coercion Results Embargo Nomination phase Vote transferring Vote revocation Number of votes Type of voting The design space of voting: configuring the attributes of voting systems for participation. Designing E-Voting The design space of voting Polling duration
- 4. Who is eligible to vote? Who is eligible to be elected? Eligibility Managing electoral roll With e-voting we have the opportunity to rethink the way the electoral roll is managed and published to provoke social pressure for participation. e.g. Increase of participation in national elections in the US by placing banner messages on users facebook profiles3. Polling duration How 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-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. NATURE .
- 5. Fairness Vote weighting (one person – one vote) How vote weighting can make power structures visible and question them? Accessibility All the eligible participants have access to the voting apparatus. Usability considerations. Verifiability Social Verifiability?
- 6. Secrecy Coercion Secret ballot: when a voter sell his vote, no documents are provided to verify that the vote has been cast a certain way. How we can configure the secret ballot to provoke participation? Results embargo Publication of interim results. How publication of interim results can affect participation? Refers to whether casted votes and results are visible
- 7. The way the user is permitted to express their preference Expression Nomination phase Related 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 express themselves. Vote transferring Issues related to the delegation of votes. Vote revocation Issues related with revoking casted votes. Number of votes Numbers of votes allowed per participant. Type of voting Approval voting or disapproval voting.
- 8. Discussion Technological evolution and the vibrant discussion around the use of technology for democracy is an opportunity to rethink how we practice voting. Provoke the social settings for participation and deliberation instead of simply making it easier for people to vote.