This was presented by Nele Leosk from the European University Institute at the Impacts of Civic Technology Conference (TICTeC2016) in Barcelona on 27th April. You can find out more information about the conference here: https://www.mysociety.org/research/tictec-2016/

1. Beyond digital crowdsourcing -
how the Estonian People’s
Assembly solved a crisis of
democracy
Nele Leosk
Alexander H.Trechsel
European University Institute
April 27, 2016

2. People’s Assembly

3. Crowdsourcing
is defined as a public invitation by an actor
or a group of actors for any person or
organization to participate in a process
geared at finding solutions to a societal
problem
(adopted Brabham 2008; Howe 2006; Landemore 2014)

4. Contributions
• Staging the process
• Impact analysis
- Inclusiveness
a) Preconditions
b) Who gets involved?
c) Whose voice is heard?
• Political outcomes
- institutional changes

5. Political turmoil. Silvergate. 2012

6. “Charter 12” November 2012

7. Ice-Cellar meeting. Nov.21, 2012

8. Crowdsourcing. 7-31.01.2013

9. Topics
• Financing and financial reporting (of political
parties)
• Political parties and party system
(establishment, membership)
• Public participation in policy making between
the elections (open policy making, petitions,
etc)
• Electoral system regulation
• Political patronage and corruption
• Varia

10. Analysis. Discussion seminars. Feb-
March 2013

11. Deliberation day. April 6, 2013

12. Ideas handed to the
Parliament. April 12, 2013

13. Crowdsourcing: 1970 registered
users
0
100200300400
1/7/2013 1/30/2013
Day of registration

14. Gender

15. Activity by type and gender

16. Age0
20406080
20 40 60 80 100
Frequency kdensity age, area=1971
47.58

17. Type of
participation Obs Mean Median SD Min Max
Voted 1568 40.43878 13 79.13851 1 1226
Commented 394 7.241117 2 18.74878 1 258
Presented Ideas 644 3.031056 1 12.40387 1 276
0
50
100150200250
0 20 40 60 80 100
Votes (for and against)
0
50
100150
Frequency
0 10 20 30 40
Comments
0
100200300400
Frequency
0 5 10 15 20 25
Ideas

18. Crowdsourcing. 1969 ideas
by topic

19. Most endorsed ideas’
presenters

20. Final ideas’ presenters

21. Discussion seminars by actors’
group
1. Participation 2. Financing 3. Political
patronage
4. Parties 5. Elections Total
Politician 8
(25%)
10
(29.4%)
9
(30%)
7
(30.4%)
10
(31.3%)
44
(29.1%)
Expert 14
(43.8%)
12
(35.3%)
13
(43.3%)
10
(33.5%)
12
(37.5%)
61
(40.4%)
Citizen 9
(28.1%)
11
(32.4%)
7
(23.3%)
6
(26.1%)
9
(28.1%)
42
(27.8%)
Media 1
(3.1%)
1
(2.9%)
1
(3.3%)
0
(0%)
1
(3.1%)
4
(2.6%)
Total 32
(100%)
34
(100%)
30
(100%)
23
(100%)
32
(100%)
151
(100%)

22. Rep. by political party
Seminar 1 Seminar 2 Seminar 3 Seminar 4 Seminar 5
Participation Financing Political
patronage
Parties Elections Total
SDE 2
(22.2%)
3
(27.3%)
2
(22.2%)
1
(9.1%)
4
(33.3%)
12
(23.1%)
RE 1
(11.1%)
2
(18.2%)
2
(22.2%)
3
(27.3%)
1
(8.3%)
9
(17.3%)
IRL 0
(0%)
1
(9.1%)
0
(0%)
1
(9.1%)
1
(8.3%)
3
(5.8%)
KESK 3
(33.3%)
3
(27.3)
3
(33.3%)
3
(27.3%)
3
(25%)
15
(28.8%)
EER 1
(11.1%)
1
(9.1%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2
(3.8%)
ERKE 1
(11.1%)
1
(9.1%)
2
(22.2%)
2
(18.2%)
3
(25%)
9
(17.3%)
DEM 1
(11.1%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(1.9%)

23. Representation at the DDay
Participants Population
1. Gender (n=299)
Male 45% 45%
Female 55% 55%
2. Age (n=294)
18-35 18% 34%
36-55 32% 34%
56+ 50% 32%
3. Education (n=299)
Elementary 4% 17%
Secondary 18% 27%
Vocational 26% 33%
Higher 52% 24%
4. Living place (n=296)
Town 64% 70%
Country 36% 30%

24. Transparency
• Guaranteed at most stages
- Transparent at the initial crowdsourcing and
the final Deliberation Day phase
- failed at the ideas systemisation and
analysis phase
• National public broadcasting company as media
partner
- local media less involved
• Mainly new technologies and social media
dependent: People’s Assembly portal, online
streamings, FB

25. Inclusion
• Aimed at all inclusiveness
• Random, targeted and self-selection
mechanisms used
• Politicians, experts (public officials,
representatives of civil society
organisations, academia), and the public
involved at all stages
- Yet, not equal at all stages
• Full representativeness not reached

26. Political outcomes
• Out of the 15 presented ideas:
– Two fully implemented (regulation on popular
initiatives, lowering the no needed for
establishing a pol. party)
– Four partly implemented
– Three included in the Coalition Agreement of
the Government (assumed office March 2014)
Longer term impact:
- Vabaerakond established in 2014 with 650
members, 8 seats in the Parliament (2015)
- www.rahvaalgatus.ee (2016)

27. Some conclusions
• Crowdsourcing suitable for addressing
highly salient societal issues:
– tensions smoothened by involving the
public;
- can have considerable political impact
• Various selection mechanisms needed to
improve representativeness (gender and
age)
• Cooperation betw. different societal
groups

28. nele.leosk@eui.eu
Skype: neleleosk
Thank you!