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

1. Liquid Democracy –
Norm, Code and Developers of Democracy
beyond Representation
Anja Adler
NRW School of Governance, University Duisburg-Essen
May 23, 2013
Supervisors:
Prof. Dr. Karl-Rudolf Korte
Prof. Dr. Christoph Bieber

2. 1. Intro: Context
2. Conceptual Framework
3. Research Questions
4. Theory & State of Research
5. Methodology
6. Questions and Discussion

3. Decision-making within Pirate Party
https://lqfb.piratenpartei.de/

4. Consultation for Committee of Inquiry by German Bundestag
https://enquetebeteiligung.de/

5. Consultation for Party Program for SPD
https://zukunftsdialog.spdfraktion.de/

6. Only two central actors
Interactive Democracy e.V.
(Liquid Feedback)
Liquid Democracy e.V.
(Adhocracy)

7. http://www.zeit.de/2012/18/Piratenpartei-Liquid-Feedback

8. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/sunday-review/direct-
democracy-2-0.html

9. Conceptual Framework
• wave of publication on Pirates, but LD is most of the
times just mentioned
• only a handful of in-depth discussion from an academic
perspectives, some also in blogposts
• definition so far as mixture between representative and
direct democracy with main element of delegation
• authors have differing understandings of LD
• as starting point project seeks to develop a conceptual
framework

10. Conceptual Framework: Democracy Theory
delegation
discourse
(based on Wilker 2012)
(based on Bieber 2012)

11. Conceptual Framework: Level of Abstraction

12. Conceptual Framework as Double Continuum

13. Research Questions
1. How is Liquid Democracy conceptionalized in its norm
and realized in code by the two German organizations,
Liquid Democracy e.V. and Interactive Democracy e.V.?
2. What kind of political actors are the developers of liquid
democracy? What motivates political scientists,
programmers and other supporters in both organizations to
work on this topic? How does the process of collaboration
between political scientist and programmers work?
3. In what way do these processes influence political actors/the
political system? Which institutions and/or actors are the
main targets of this innovation? What are effects of these
programming activities?

14. Theory & State of Research
• Liquid Democracy as new form of political consulting (a
combination of expert-civic consulting addressed to politics
following Nullmeier/Dietz (2011))
• Developers as “architects of new [public] communication
spaces” (Schmidt 2012) and platform design come into focus
• Technology is not neutral (e.g. Lessig 1999, Noveck 2009,
Rushkoff 2003) but shaped by values and norms of its
developers
• Code understood as a specific set of algorithms readably for a
computer (Mackenzie 2006, Rushkoff 2003, 2010, Rosenberg
2008, Kitchin/Dodge 2011, Ullman 2013)
• Norm as framework of rules for a group, theoretical weak spot

15. Methodological Approach:
Exploratory: Grounded Theory Approach?
1. Conceptionalized in norm/realization in code:
descriptive: analysis of online self-portrayals (website,
wikis, articles) & semi-structured expert interviews with
heads of associations, documentation of the software
2. Role of developers/process of collaboration:
hypothesis-generating: semi-structured interviews with
developers on their role and motivation, participation at
programming sprint
3. Effects of these programming activities: not really
focus of this research project, but aim is to formulate
hypotheses at the end about role and influence of liquid
democracy developers (programmers and thinkers) in
shaping the software and participation processes

16. Sources
Bieber, C. (2012, Dezember 5). Digital Diskutieren und Online Entscheiden - Liquid Democracy als
neues Politikmodell? Kleine Form der Universität Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg. http://www.uni-due.de/
kleine-form/bieber.php [April 15, 2013]
Kitchin, R., & Dodge, M. (2011). Code/Space: Software and Everyday Life (Software Studies.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lessig, L. (1999). Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. Basic Books.
Mackenzie, A. (2006). Cutting Code: Software and Sociality (1. Aufl.). Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
Noveck, B. S. (2009). Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy
Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Nullmeier, F., & Dietz, M. (2011). Gesellschaftsberatung und Deliberative Verfahren. Zeitschrift für
Politikwissenschaft, (3), 307–329.
Rosenberg, S. (2008). Dreaming in Code: Two Dozen Programmers, Three Years, 4,732 Bugs, and
One Quest for Transcendent Software (Reprint.). Three Rivers Press.
Rushkoff, D. (2003a). Open Source Democracy: How Online Communication is Changing Offline
Politics. Demos.
Rushkoff, D. (2010). Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age. Berkeley: Soft
Skull Books.
Schmidt, J.-H. (2012). Das demokratische Netz? Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, (7), 3–8.
Ullman, E. (2013). Close to the Machine. Pushkin Press.
Wilker, Nadja (2012): Liquid Democracy ? Eine demokratietheoretische Analyse. Unveröffentlichte
Masterarbeit am Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, HHU Düsseldorf.

17.
Thank you for your attention.
Questions?
Contact:
anja.adler@uni-due.de
@anjamarieadler