This is an HTML working draft that led to an article publication. A reference to this work
should always be done using the following citation:

“Dimitrios Zissis, Dimitrios Lekkas, Anastasia-Evangelia Papadopoulou, Competent
electronic participation channels in electronic democracy, Proceedings of the 8th European
Conference on e-Government, p.p 533-546, Ecole Polytechnique, Lausanne, Switzerland, 10-
11 July 2008.”

This material is presented to ensure timely dissemination of scholarly and technical work.
Copyright and all rights therein are retained by authors or by other copyright holders. All
persons copying this information are expected to adhere to the terms and constraints invoked
by each author's copyright. In most cases, these works may not be reposted without the
explicit permission of the copyright holder.


Competent electronic participation channels in electronic democracy
Dimitrios Zissis, Dimitrios Lekkas, Anastasia-Evangelia Papadopoulou
Department of Product and Systems Design Engineering, Syros, Greece
dzissis@aegean.gr
lekkas@aegean.gr
dpsd03040@syros.aegean.gr

Abstract: Electronic Democracy is appearing in political agendas across countries and boarders. This
paper refers to electronic participation channels implemented to digitalize decision processes in an
electronic democracy. Electronic participation includes the sub processes of information acquisition
and formation of an opinion. The function of efficient electronic participation in electronic democracy is
crucial and indispensable. Electronic Democracy provides citizens with the opportunity to engage
efficiently in democratic processes. Current technology can be perceived as an evolution of traditional
communication linkages between political representatives and citizens. These can provide an
“extensive library” of information and a “meeting point” for political debate. A surplus of existing
technologies provides the means to enhance the unidirectional and bidirectional communication paths
between citizens and involved political entities. Such a technological deployment though must meet a
number of requirements ranging from usability issues to electronic security. An in depth analysis and
review of social and technical requirements of such channels is provided in this paper. Solutions are
presented which meet previously identified needs and through their comparison the fulfilment of the
requirements will be met. This papers objective is to identify the custom design for efficient and
competent electronic participation channels in electronic democracy. This goal will be achieved
through a comparison of the current technological tools used in e-participation, called e-methods. For
each one of these e-methods a SWOT analysis will be provided, listing the Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats, that this particular tool may have. Eventually a comparison is made after
the establishment of criteria regarding many aspects such as: security, privacy, accessibility, user’s or
developer’s viewpoints. Proficiently deployed technological infrastructures which enhance the
bidirectional communication pathways will lead to engaged and better informed citizens, and evidently
to a stronger democracy. Findings of this paper should be considered by parties interested in
deploying electronic democracy infrastructures and fellow researchers in the field.

Keywords: e-democracy, e-voting, e-participation, e-methods comparison


1. Electronic Democracy
Recent years have brought upon us the digitalization of society. Through innovation, evolutionary
communication technologies have drastically altered traditional ways of interaction and
communication, initially used by academia and businesses to provide their students and customers
new services. Countries globally, realizing the benefits of new technologies, envisioned e-
governments and e-democracies.

The dictionary’s definition for democracy is that of “a government in which the supreme power is
vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation
usually involving periodically held free elections”.

Electronic Democracy is defined as the electronic representation of the democratic processes. (von
Lucke). Democratic process are divided into three sub processes (Parycek, 2003)

(i) Information acquisition,
(ii) Formation of an opinion and
(iii) The decision itself.

E-democracy contains two aims which derive from the above statement (Alexander Prosser, 2004):

• The field of E-Participation (Information acquisition & formation of an opinion)
• The field of E-Voting (the decision making process)

Combining technical complexity and political processes leads to the development of an E-Democracy
application framework. The proposed framework by A. Prosser and R. Krimmer follows an approach
introduced by the EU Forum E-Democracy working group (Macintosh, 2003).



Figure 1: E-Democracy application framework

Using Information & Communication technologies to engage the public in the democratic processes is
named electronic participation. E-Participation refers to “ICT-supported participation in processes
involved in government and governance. Processes may concern administration, service delivery,
decision making and policy making” (Pauliina Lehtonen, 2007). The combination of the various
stakeholders’ interest in participation and the development of the technological infrastructure have
resulted in many new projects designed to exploit the potential of ICT that supports communication
and participation in political processes (Bekkers, 2004) (Best, 2005) (Curwell, 2005).

E-Participation can principally be understood as technology-mediated interaction between the civil
society sphere and the formal politics sphere, and between the civil society sphere and the
administration sphere (Clive Sanford, 2007). The task of e-Participation is to empower people with
ICTs to be able to act in bottom-up decision processes, to make informed decisions, and to develop
social and political responsibility. Therefore, e-Participation is a means to empower the political,
sociotechnological, and cultural capabilities of individuals giving the possibility that individuals can
involve themselves and organize themselves in the information society. (Christian Fuchs, 2006).

Table 1: Participation areas, identified by C.Fraser etc:

Information Provision ICT to structure, represent and manage information in participation contexts
Community building / ICT to support individuals come together to form communities, to progress

Collaborative
Environments
shared agendas and to shape and empower such communities
Consultation ICT in official initiatives by public or private agencies to allow stakeholders to contribute their opinion, either privately or publicly, on specific issues
Campaigning ICT in protest, lobbying, petitioning, and other forms of collective action (except of election campaigns, see electioneering as participation area)
Electioneering ICT to support politicians, political parties and lobbyists in the context of election campaigns
Deliberation ICT to support virtual, small and large-group discussions, allowing reflection and consideration of issues
Discourse ICT to support analysis and representation of discourse
Mediation ICT to resolve disputes or conflicts in an online context
Spatial planning ICT in urban planning and environmental assessment
Polling ICT to measure public opinion and sentiment
Voting ICT in the context of public voting in elections, referenda or local plebiscites
3. Social Requirements
The roots of all democratic constitutions rely in ancient Athens. Athenian philosopher Plato (Greek:
Πλάτων) and founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the western
world, believed that an uninformed and disengaged public was the greatest threat to democracy. “In
ignorance they tend to vote for politicians who beguile them with appearances and nebulous talk, and
they inevitably find themselves at the mercy of administrations and conditions over which they have
no control because they do not understand what is happening around them. They are guided by
unreliable emotions more than by careful analysis, and they are lured into adventurous wars and
victimized by costly defeats that could have been entirely avoided.” (Plato, 370BC) Plato’s critique on
democracy still poses the question whether citizens of today's democracies are interested and
informed enough to participate meaningfully in the democratic process.

Centuries later Barber (Barber, 1984) emphasizes on the concept of a strong democracy, on the basis
of active citizen participation. Held (Held, 1996) in his participatory model emphasizes the need to
engage citizens and civil society organizations in the policy process, however he recognizes the need
for informed and active citizens. Many academics and authors of our time are recognizing the same
need. Fishkin argues the need for ‘mass’ deliberation by citizens instead of ‘elite’ deliberation by
elected representatives (Fishkin, 1995) (Macintosh, 2003). However he fears that technology could
diminish face to face confrontation and increase the dangers of elite manipulation. Van Dijk also
warns of the consequences of bad designs of technology and implications on the democratic system
(Dijk, 2000). Macintosh (Macintosh, 2003) identifies as a social requirement” that computerized
information campaigns and mass public information systems have to be designed and supported in
such a way to help narrowing the gap between the ‘information rich’ and ‘information poor’ otherwise
the spontaneous development of ICT will widen it.

The term “digital divide” is defined as disparities in computer ownership and Internet access based on
income (Neu, 1998). The divide refers to an imbalance in physical access to hardware and in
knowledge necessary to enable a digital citizen participating in an e-voting system. Digital Divide is
discussed to hold in the context of socioeconomic, racial and geographic differences. The digital
divide is often referred to as the primary socio-political issue (Hoffman L.J., 2000) leading to inequality
of citizens vote. It can be argued though that this “divide” is not clearly “digital” and originates from a
deeper societal issue. Scholars and policymakers have long recognized differential turnout rates by
socioeconomic status in American elections; individuals with higher income, education and
occupational status are significantly more likely to vote, as are whites (Campbell, 1960). “As a result
the internet may merely magnify existing disparities in the electorate representation” (Tolbert C.,
McNeal R., Kent State University, 2001) and cannot be viewed as introducing inequality. The
existence of a digital divide is not universally acceptable. Compaine (Compaine, 2001) argues that
such a gap is only a “perceived gap”. As technology primary goal is becoming user friendlier such a
gap, if existent, is evidently going to disappear.

The internet can be perceived as an evolution of current communication linkages between political
representatives and citizens. It provides an “extensive library” of information and a “forum” of political
debate. Since the 1960s mass media has dominated the political arena, placing television in a
unidirectional linkage between individuals and political candidates. Widespread television ownership

in the US allowed voters to see and hear candidates from the comfort of their living rooms; individuals
had greater information to help them decide how to vote and candidates no longer had to depend on
the political party for access to voters (M.R., 1995). Academics and researchers have expressed their
concern about the over reliance on the media in the political process. (Davis, 1994) (Graber, 1989)
(Kerbel, 1998) (Cappela, 1997) (Crotty, 1980) (Entman, 1989). The press has been blamed for the
disengagement of citizens in the political process; interested individuals cannot find substantive
information and are being led away from the political process (Crotty, 1980) (Entman, 1989). Reliance
on outlets of information such as television has reduced the general public to passive receivers of
information passed on by public officials and political candidates. An efficiently designed e-democracy
system will provide the means for bi-directional exchange of information and re engagement of active
citizens in the political process. But before any medium can be adopted as a mass medium a critical
number of adopters must be reached. Marcus (Markus, 1990) states that in general, the critical
number of adopters for an innovation is approximately 16% of population. Internet adoption in EU is
growing at exponential rates. Recent Surveys show that broadband internet connections have
reached 23% of EU households.

From the above, a number of social requirements can be identified:

• Accessibility: Is it possible for this method to meet the accessibility guidelines stated by the
W3C Recommendation 5-May-1999?
• Privacy: Can the user’s privacy be preserved?
• User Hardware Requirements: What kind of hardware is the user required to posses to
execute the application (ex. High speed Broadband connection)?
• User Technical Knowledge Required: Is the user required to be familiar with certain
technologies in order to use the e-method?

3. Technical Requirements
A number of tools which are targeted at increasing e-participation have been identified; these are also
referred to as e-methods. These web based tools cover various areas of participation.

Each one of the e-methods presented below is accompanied by a SWOT analysis. SWOT analysis
(Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats analysis) is a descriptive method for identifying
and listing positive or negative factors about an issue, in a more representational and concentrated
way. Eventually all the data from the SWOT matrixes are combined in one criteria form in order to
make a comparison between e-participations’ tools.

The first step for the SWOT analysis was to establish a series of criteria. These criteria were carefully
selected as to maintain a balance in sought after technical requirements and social requirements.
Fraser et al. (2006) have identified a number of preconditions for the successful deployment of e-
Participation tools. One of the identified preconditions is related to security and privacy in e-
Participation contexts. E-Participation services need to be easy to use, simple and without time-
consuming procedures to ensure the participation of users.

However, there is also a need to implement security and privacy measures in e-Participation services
to ensure that the users will trust a system. If users’ expectations of security and privacy are not met,
or if the measures are excessive, then participation will be ineffective, either due to a lack of trust in
the system, or due to system usability problems. It is, therefore, important that a proper balance
between security, usability and transparency of e-Participation services be achieved.

From the above, a number of technical requirements can be identified:

• Deployment Complexity: How difficult is the deployment of an e-participation tool?
• Information Richness: What amount of information is the specific e-method able to contain?
• Security: Can the user’s navigation be secured?
• Interactivity: To what degree are the communication channels unidirectional or bidirectional?
• Scalability: How effectively can the application scale to meet a broader public or extend its
current capabilities?

3.1 Webcasts
A webcast is the Internet audio and/or video stream produced from a live event, or an online simulcast
of a broadcast signal (Elaine G. Toms, 2005). A webcasting system can be classed as a form of
multimedia system, and a webcast, thus, is a multi-media object with multiple components. In addition
to the video, the webcast usually includes the slides from a presentation, and may include other
artifacts. Webcasts are usually transmitted and seen by the participants at the same time (real-time)
and their duration may be over one hour, although they can be archived to allow people to view them
at a later time, creating an issue of data storage. This system offers its participants a way to see and
hear a transmission but in general it’s not very interactive.

Table 2: SWOT Analysis for WebCasts

Strengths Weaknesses
9 Accessibility: HIGH
9 Information Richness: HIGH
9 Privacy: HIGH
9 Security: HIGH
9 User Technical Knowledge Required: LOW
9 Deployment Complexity: HIGH
9 Interactivity: LOW
9 Scalability: MODERATE
9 User Hardware Requirements: HIGH
Opportunities Threats
9 Information Provision
9 Electioneering
9 Real Time Video Player might create
accessibility issues
9 Large Hardware Requirements and High
Complexity in Deployment in case of
scalability due to large amount of data stored

3.2 FAQ
This method presents information through questions (Q) and answers (A) that can be searched using
keywords or by inputting a question or statement in ‘natural language’. However the information
cannot be considered to be sufficient to cover and communicate a whole topic as the system
question-answer provides participants a very fragmental opinion.

Table 3: SWOT Analysis for FAQs
 
Strengths Weaknesses
9 Accessibility: HIGH
9 Privacy: HIGH
9 Security: HIGH
9 User Hardware Requirements: LOW
9 User Technical Knowledge Required: LOW
9 Deployment Complexity: LOW
9 Information Richness: MODERATE
9 Interactivity: LOW
9 Scalability: MODERATE
Opportunities Threats
9 Information Provision
9 Electioneering
9 May not fully inform a user
9 Navigation and search problems

3.3 Blogs
A web-blog is a web page with minimal to no external editing, providing on-line commentary,
periodically updated and presented in reverse chronological order, with hyperlinks to other online
sources. (Daniel W. Drezner, 2004). Software required to run a blog is available free of charge on the
internet, is relatively easy to use and requires no specialist knowledge of web languages to operate.

Table 4: SWOT Analysis for Blogs

Strengths Weaknesses

9 Accessibility: HIGH
9 Deployment Complexity: LOW
9 User Hardware Requirements: LOW
9 User Technical Knowledge Required: LOW
9 Information Richness: MODERATE
Interactivity: MODERATE
9 Privacy: MODERATE
9 Security: MODERATE
9 Scalability: MODERATE
Opportunities Threats
9 Information Provision
9 Campaigning
9 Electioneering
9 Discourse
9 Information provided could be one sided if
only authors opinion expressed
9 Privacy issues could be a problem

3.4 Quick Polls
An opinion poll is a survey of opinion from a particular sample. Opinion polls are usually designed to
represent the opinions of a population by asking a small number of people a series of questions and
then extrapolating the answers to the larger group within confidence intervals. The answers given are
anonymous, no personal or demographical data required.

Table 5: SWOT Analysis for Quick Polls

Strengths Weaknesses
9 Accessibility: HIGH
9 Deployment Complexity: LOW
9 Privacy: HIGH
9 User Hardware Requirements: LOW
9 User Technical Knowledge Required: LOW
9 Information Richness: MODERATE
9 Interactivity: MODERATE
9 Scalability: MODERATE
9 Security: MODERATE
Opportunities Threats
9 Consultation
9 Campaigning
9 Electioneering
9 Polling
9 The same visitor could submit more
than one responses to a specific poll
9 Security could be an issue if input not
validated

3.5 Surveys
A survey is a process for gathering information, without detailed verification, on the activity being
examined. It is in fact a questionnaire with specific structure of close-ended questions (typically with
ordered response categories) and some open-ended questions.

Table 6: SWOT Analysis for Surveys

Strengths Weaknesses
9 Accessibility: HIGH
9 User Hardware Requirements: LOW
9 User Technical Knowledge Required: LOW
9 Deployment Complexity: LOW
9 Information Richness: MODERATE
9 Interactivity: LOW
9 Privacy: MODERATE
9 Security: MODERATE
9 Scalability: LOW
Opportunities Threats
9 Consultation
9 Campaigning
9 Electioneering
9 Polling
9 Visitors’ privacy must be protected and no
personal or demographic data should be
required
9 Security could be an issue if not
implemented carefully

3.6 Chat Rooms
A chat room or chatroom is a term used primarily by mass media to describe any form of synchronous
conferencing, occasionally even asynchronous conferencing. The term can thus mean any technology

ranging from real-time online chat over instant messaging and online forums to fully immersive
graphical. Chat rooms sometimes have a ‘moderator’ to facilitate interaction with the panel and to
control the discussion.

Table 7: SWOT Analysis for Chat Rooms

Strengths Weaknesses
9 Information Richness: HIGH
9 Interactivity: HIGH
9 User Hardware Requirements: LOW
9 User Technical Knowledge Required: LOW
9 Accessibility: MODERATE
9 Deployment Complexity: MODERATE
9 Privacy: LOW
9 Security: LOW
9 Scalability: LOW
Opportunities Threats
9 Information Provision
9 Community Building
9 Campaigning
9 Electioneering
9 Deliberation
9 Discourse
9 Mediation
9 A large number of visitors can create
scalability issues
9 Privacy must be maintained

3.7 Decision-making games
Decision-making games allow users to view and interact with animations that describe, illustrate or
simulate relevant aspects of an issue. There is usually some competitive aspect such as a quiz. The
content, level of difficulty and types of interfaces are dependent on the target audience. Information
can be provided through a question and answer type game similar to a FAQ. The user can be
presented with a graphical representation of a place or situation and various options that, when
selected, change the representation in some way to simulate the effect of real-life decision-making.

Table 8: SWOT Analysis for Decision-Making Games

Strengths Weaknesses
9 Interactivity: HIGH
9 User Technical Knowledge Required: LOW
9 Accessibility: LOW
9 Deployment Complexity: HIGH
9 Information Richness: MODERATE
9 Privacy: MODERATE
9 Security: MODERATE
9 Scalability: MODERATE
9 User Hardware Requirements: HIGH
Opportunities Threats
9 Information Provision
9 Community Building
9 Electioneering
9 A large number of visitors can create
scalability issues
9 Accessibility requirements may not be able
to be followed

3.8 Discussion Forums
An Internet forum is a web application for holding discussions and posting. Internet forums are also
commonly referred to as Web forums, message boards, discussion boards, (electronic) discussion
groups, discussion forums, bulletin boards, fora (the Latin plural) or simply forums. It typically shows a
list of topics people are concerned about. Users can pick a topic and see a 'thread' of messages and
replies then post their own message. Communication channels can either be asynchronous or
synchronous.

Table 9: SWOT Analysis for Discussion Forums

Strengths Weaknesses

9 Information Richness: HIGH
9 Interactivity: HIGH
9 User Hardware Requirements: LOW
9 User Technical Knowledge Required: LOW
9 Accessibility: MODERATE
9 Deployment Complexity: MODERATE
9 Privacy: LOW
9 Security: MODERATE
9 Scalability: MODERATE
Opportunities Threats
9 Information Provision
9 Community Building
9 Campaigning
9 Electioneering
9 Deliberation
9 Discourse
9 Mediation
9 Information provided could be one sided if
only authors opinion expressed


3.9 e-Panels
E-Panels represent a recruited set, as opposed to a self-selected set, of participants who have agreed
to discuss on a variety of issues using ICTs at specific intervals over a period of time. Sometimes we
may have no interaction in case online questionnaires are used but it is also possible to support
intensive engagement by providing participants a number of e-tools in order to contribute online.

Table 10: SWOT Analysis for e-Panels

Strengths Weaknesses
9 Information Richness: HIGH
9 Interactivity: HIGH

9 Accessibility: MODERATE
9 Deployment Complexity: HIGH
9 Privacy: MODERATE
9 Security: MODERATE
9 Scalability: MODERATE
9 User Hardware Requirements: MODERATE
9 User Technical Knowledge Required:
MODERATE
Opportunities Threats
9 Information Provision
9 Consultation
9 Deliberation
9 Mediation
9 A large number of visitors can create
scalability issues
9 Privacy must be maintained

3.10 e-Petitions
An Internet petition is a form of petition posted on a website. Website visitors are questioned if they
want to add their email addresses or names in the petition form, and after enough "signatures" have
been collected, the resulting letter may be delivered to the author of the petition, usually via e-mail. An
integrated discussion forum can also be incorporated to allow users to voice their support or concerns
for the e-petition.

Table 11: SWOT Analysis for e-Petitions

Strengths Weaknesses
9 Information Richness: HIGH
9 Accessibility: MODERATE
9 Deployment Complexity: MODERATE
9 Interactivity: MODERATE
9 Privacy: LOW
9 Security: MODERATE
9 Scalability: MODERATE
9 User Hardware Requirements: MODERATE
9 User Technical Knowledge Required:
MODERATE
Opportunities Threats

9 Consultation
9 Campaigning
9 Mediation
9 Polling
9 Data protection required

3.11 E-Deliberative polling
Deliberative polling combines small-group discussions involving large numbers of participants with
random sampling of public opinion. Its overall purpose is to establish a base of informed public
opinion on a specific issue. Citizens are invited to take part at random, so that a large enough
participant group will provide a relatively accurate, scientific representation of public opinion.

Table 12: SWOT Analysis for e-Deliberative Polling

Strengths Weaknesses
9 Information Richness: HIGH
9 Interactivity: HIGH
9 Accessibility: MODERATE
9 Deployment Complexity: HIGH
9 Privacy: MODERATE
9 Security: MODERATE
9 Scalability: MODERATE
9 User Hardware Requirements: MODERATE
9 User Technical Knowledge Required:
MODERATE
Opportunities Threats
9 Information Provision
9 Community Building
9 Consultation
9 Campaigning
9 Mediation
9 Polling
9 Data protection required

3.12 Virtual Communities
A virtual community, e-community or online community is a group of people that primarily interact via
communication media such as, email or Usenet rather than face to face. If the mechanism is a
computer network, it is called an online community.
Table 13: SWOT Analysis for Virtual Communities

Strengths Weaknesses
9 Information Richness: HIGH
9 Interactivity: HIGH

9 Accessibility: MODERATE
9 Deployment Complexity: HIGH
9 Privacy: LOW
9 Security: LOW
9 Scalability: MODERATE
9 User Hardware Requirements: MODERATE
9 User Technical Knowledge Required:
MODERATE
Opportunities Threats
9 Information Provision
9 Community Building
9 Electioneering
9 Deliberation
9 Discourse
9 Mediation
9 Data protection required
9 The target audience must be willing to
participate

3.13 Alert Mechanisms – email alerts and RSS Feeds
RSS or Real Simple Syndication is technology designed to allow users to subscribe to a specific
content feed and be automatically alerted when new updates are available.

Table 14: SWOT Analysis for e-mail alerts and RSS Feeds

Strengths Weaknesses
9 Accessibility: HIGH
9 Deployment Complexity: LOW
9 Privacy: HIGH
9 Security: HIGH
9 Scalability: HIGH
9 User Hardware Requirements: LOW
9 User Technical Knowledge Required: LOW
9 Information Richness: MODERATE
9 Interactivity: LOW
Opportunities Threats
9 Information Provision
9 Electioneering 9 Single sided information

3.14. E-Methods Comparison
The following table is a criteria rating form for the above analysed e-methods. For each criterion
established a weight is given to declare its importance. Then each e-method is rated corresponding to
its coverage of the perquisites. The rates that each method gets are multiplied with the weight, in
order to get a total score (note that the ratings are according to the swot analysis of each method). It
is essential to note at this point that it doesn’t matter which method gets the maximum score. Instead
the important thing is the fluctuation that each method’s ratings presents, that implies that one method
may be more proper for one application than another.

 

Table 15: Criteria Form for e-methods

Decision Matrix
e-Methods
1:
W
eb
C
as
ts

2:
F
A
Q

3:
B
lo
gs

4:
Q
ui
ck
P
ol
ls

5:
S
ur
ve
ys

6:
C
ha
tR
oo
m
s
7:
D
ec
is
io
n-
M
ak
in
g
G
am
es

8:
D
is
cu
ss
io
n
Fo
ru
m
s
9:
e
-P
an
el
s
10
: e
-P
et
iti
on
s
11
: e
-D
el
ib
er
at
iv
e
P
ol
lin
g

12
: V
irt
ua
l C
om
m
un
iti
es

13
: A
le
rt
M
ec
ha
ni
sm
s
Criteria Weight Rate
Accessibility 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 3
Deployment
Complexity -1 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 1
Hardware Required
from User -2 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 1
Information Richness 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2
Interactivity 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 1
Privacy 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3
Security 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 3
Scalability 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3
User Technical
Knowledge Required -2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1
Total 10 22 17 16 17 14 15 19 17 21 18 21 19 18
Summary 29 32 28 31 25 22 18 26 24 20 24 18 33
Score = Rating * Weight

Table 16: Rates

Rating Description
0 No Fit
1 Low Fit
2 Moderate Fit
3 High Fit

Table 17: Weights For Positive Factors

Weights Description
1 Low Importance
2 Moderate Importance
3 High Importance

Table 18: Weights For Negative Factors

Weights Description
-1 Low Importance
-2 Moderate Importance
-3 High Importance

Table 18: Explanation of Criteria Weighting

Not that the importance given when assessing with e.g. 3 or -3 is the same, with the difference that a
negative weight implies a negative factor.

Weights Criteria Reason
3 or -3

Accessibility
Information Richness
Privacy
Security
If users’ expectations of security and
privacy are not met, or if the measures are
excessive, then participation will be
ineffective, either due to a lack of trust in
the system, or due to system usability
problems. Security, usability and
transparency are equally of high importance
in e-Participation services. Accessibility is
of high importance as inequalities in
accessibility will exclude a number of users
from participating. Information Richness
(acquisition) is a crucial element of e-
Participation, leading to e-Democracy.
2 or -2
Interactivity
Hardware Required from User
User Technical Knowledge Required
As technology’s primary goal is becoming
user friendlier such a gap in hardware
requirements and technical knowledge
requirements, is evidently going to
disappear. An efficiently designed e-
democracy system will provide the means
for bi-directional exchange of information
and re engagement of active citizens in the
political process (interactivity). So these
factors do not affect participation or users
in the same way that the above mentioned
do.
1 or -1 Scalability Deployment Complexity
As e-methods are targeted at increasing
participation in democratic processes,
Scalability and Deployment Complexity, do
not directly influence end users.

Table 19: E-Methods Score Fluctuation


9
‐3
‐6
9
2
9 9
2
‐2
‐10
‐5
0
5
10
A
cc
es
si
bi
lit
y
D
ep
lo
ym
en
t 
Co
m
pl
ex
ity
H
ar
dw
ar
e 
Re
qu
ir
ed
In
fo
rm
at
io
n 
Ri
ch
ne
ss
In
te
ra
ct
iv
ity
Pr
iv
ac
y
Se
cu
ri
ty
Sc
al
ab
ili
ty
Te
ch
ni
ca
l 
Kn
ow
le
dg
e 
1: WebCasts

9
‐1 ‐2
6
2
9 9
2
‐2
‐10
‐5
0
5
10
2: FAQ

9
‐1 ‐2
6 4 6 6 2
‐2
‐10
‐5
0
5
10
A
cc
es
si
bi
lit
y
D
ep
lo
ym
en
t 
Co
m
pl
ex
ity
H
ar
dw
ar
e 
Re
qu
ir
ed
In
fo
rm
at
io
n 
Ri
ch
ne
ss
In
te
ra
ct
iv
ity
Pr
iv
ac
y
Se
cu
ri
ty
Sc
al
ab
ili
ty
Te
ch
ni
ca
l 
Kn
ow
le
dg
e 
3: Blogs
9
‐1 ‐2
6 4
9
6
2
‐2
‐10
‐5
0
5
10
4: Quick Polls

9
‐1 ‐2
6
2
6 6
1
‐2
‐10
‐5
0
5
10
5: Surveys

6
‐2 ‐2
9
6
3 3 1
‐2
‐10
‐5
0
5
10
6: ChatRooms

3
‐3
‐6
6 6 6 6
2
‐2
‐10
‐5
0
5
10
7: Decision‐Making Games

6
‐2 ‐2
9
6
3
6
2
‐2
‐10
‐5
0
5
10
8: Discussion Forums

6
‐3 ‐4
9
6 6 6
2
‐4
‐10
‐5
0
5
10
9: e‐Panels
 
6
‐2 ‐4
9
4 3
6
2
‐4
‐10
‐5
0
5
10
10: e‐Petitions
6
‐3 ‐4
9
6 6 6
2
‐4
‐10
‐5
0
5
10
11: e‐Deliberative Polling 

6
‐3 ‐4
9
6
3 3 2
‐4
‐10
‐5
0
5
10
A
cc
es
si
bi
lit
y
D
ep
lo
ym
en
t 
Co
m
pl
ex
ity
H
ar
dw
ar
e 
Re
qu
ir
ed
In
fo
rm
at
io
n 
Ri
ch
ne
ss
In
te
ra
ct
iv
ity
Pr
iv
ac
y
Se
cu
ri
ty
Sc
al
ab
ili
ty
Te
ch
ni
ca
l 
Kn
ow
le
dg
e 
12: Virtual Communities 
9
‐1 ‐2
6
2
9 9
3
‐2
‐10
‐5
0
5
10
13: Alert Mechanisms – email alerts and RSS Feeds
4. Conclusion

Towards an electronic society and an electronic democracy it is important to assess the suitability of
each available method. Competent e-participation channels in e-democracy depend on the
technologies used. This is the purpose of the comparison of e-methods presented in this paper, to
point out the characteristics of each method in order to make appropriate use of them. Although a
final score has been awarded to each method it cannot be a conclusive result leading to the use or
not of a specific e-method, only a guide to each methods advantages and disadvantages. There is no
e-method that can be suitable for all applications, and vice versa, no application can make use of all
e-methods. An e-method must be chosen regarding each situation’s demands and considering the
above mentioned advantages and disadvantages that this particular e-method has.

References
Alexander Prosser, R. K. (2004). The Dimensions of Electronic Voting Technology, Law, Politics and
Society. Proceedings: Electronic Voting in Europe, (p. 22). Austria.
Baecker, R. (2003). A principled design for scalable internet visual communications with rich media,
interactivity, and structured archives. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: IBM Centre for Advanced Studies
Conference,Proceedings of the 2003 conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative
research.
Barbara K. Kaye, T. J. (1999). Research Methodology: Taming the Cyber Frontier-Techniques for
Improving Online Surveys. Social Science Computer Review,Vol. 17, No. 3,SAGE Publications , pp.
323-337.
Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley:University of
California Press.
Bekkers, V. (2004). Virtual policy communities and responsive governance: Redesigning on-line
debates. Information Polity , pp. 193–203.
Best, S. J. (2005). Analyzing the representativeness of Internet political participation. Political
Behavior , pp. 183–216.
C. Fraser, N. L. (2006). DEMO-net: Deliverable 5.1,Report on current ICTs to enable Participation.
DEMO-net.
Campbell, A. C. (1960). The American Voter. University of Chicago Press .
Cappela, J. J. (1997). Spiral of Cynicism: The Press and the Public Good. Oxford University Press.
Christian Fuchs, R. B.-R. (2006). Broadening eParticipation: Rethinking ICTs and Participation.
Association of Internet Researchers,Internet Research 7.0. Brisbane.
Clive Sanford, J. R. (2007, December). Characterizing eParticipation. International Journal of
Information Management , pp. 406-421.
Compaine, B. M. (2001). The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Crotty, W. J. (1980). American Parties in Decline. Little, Brown and Company.
Curwell, S. D.-S. (2005). Citizens’ expectations of information cities: Implications for urban planning
and design. Building Research and Information , pp. 55–66.

Daniel W. Drezner, H. F. (2004). The power and politics of blogs. American Political Science
Association.
Davis. (1994). Politics and the Media. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Elaine G. Toms, C. D. (2005). Assessing Tools for Use with Webcasts. Denver, CO, USA:
International Conference on Digital Libraries,Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference
on Digital libraries.
Entman, R. (1989). Democracy without Citizens. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fishkin, J. S. (1995). The voice of the People. Public Opinion and Democracy. Yale University Press.
Gøtze, S. C. (2000). Bowling Together:Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation. Hansard
Society,BT.
Graber. (1989). Mass Media and American Politics. Washington: CQ Press.
Held, D. (1996). Models of democracy. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Hoffman L.J., C. L. (2000). Internet voting for public officials. Communications of the ACM , pp. 69-85.
Kerbel, M. R. (1998). CNN, ABC, and American Presidential Elections. Boulder: Westview Press.
M.R., K. (1995). Remote and Controlled:Media Politics in a Cynical Age. Boulder:Western Press.
Macintosh, A. (2003). Working Group 4 to the European Commission. Retrieved 03 05, 2004, from
http://www.eu-forum.org/summit/docs/WG4e-democracy-FINAL%20RESULTS.doc
Neu, C. A. (1998). Email Communication Between Government and Citizens: Security, Policy Issues
and Next Steps.
OECD. (2001). Engaging Citizens in Policy making: Information,Consultation, and the Public
Participation. 2001: OECD.
OECD. (2004). Promises and Problems of E-Democracy: Challenges of online citizen engagement.
Paris: OECD.
Parycek, P. S. (2003). Electronic democracy: Chances and risks for municipalities. In A. K. Prosser,
E-Democracy: Technology, right and politics. Vienna: OCG.
Pauliina Lehtonen, U. L. (2007). Understanding eParticipation,Contemporary PhD eParticipation
research in Europe. Örebro University Library.
Plato. (370BC). Republic. Athens.
Prof. Ann Macintosh,OECD E-GOVERNMENT PROJECT WORKING GROUP MEETING. (2002).
Using information and communication technologies to enhance citizen engagement in the policy
process. Paris: OECD.
Tolbert C., McNeal R., Kent State University. (2001). Does the Internet Increase Voter Participation in
Elections. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. San Francisco.
von Lucke, J. R. (n.d.). Speyerer Definition von Electronic Government. Retrieved 04 28, 2004, from
http://foev.dhv-speyer.de/ruvii