ISSN 1479-439X 195 ©Academic Conferences Ltd
Reference this paper as:
Zissis, D, Lekkas, D, and Papadopoulou. A.E, “Competent Electronic Participation Channels in Electronic
Democracy.” Electronic Journal of e-Government Volume 7 Issue 2 2009, (pp195 - 208), available online at
www.ejeg.com
Competent Electronic Participation Channels in Electronic
Democracy
Dimitrios Zissis, Dimitrios Lekkas and 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)
ƒ Information acquisition,
ƒ Formation of an opinion and
ƒ The decision itself.
E-democracy contains two aims which derive from the above statement (Alexander Prosser, 2004):
ƒ The field of E-Participation (Information acquisition & formation of an opinion)
ƒ 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):

Electronic Journal of e-Government Volume 7 Issue 2 2009 (pp195 - 208)

Figure 1: e-Democracy application framework
Using Information & Communication technologies (ICT) 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 /
Collaborative
Environments
ICT to support individuals come together to form communities, to progress 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
2. 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
www.ejeg.com 196 ©Academic Conferences Ltd

Dimitrios Zissis, Dimitrios Lekkas and Anastasia-Evangelia Papadopoulou

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:
ƒ Accessibility: Is it possible for this method to meet the accessibility guidelines stated by the W3C
Recommendation 5-May-1999?
ƒ Privacy: Can the user’s privacy be preserved?
www.ejeg.com 197 ISSN 1479-439X

Electronic Journal of e-Government Volume 7 Issue 2 2009 (pp195 - 208)
ƒ User Hardware Requirements: What kind of hardware is the user required to posses to execute
the application (ex. High speed Broadband connection)?
ƒ 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. Members of
our research team have been involved in a number of national projects making use of such e-
methods. The possibility has also been available to study electronic methods in a “bottom-up”
approach within our own university. A “bottom up” approach refers to a decentralised approach to
such issues allowing for individual research teams to drive their own projects in a controlled
environment, targeting specific problems with high priority and then expanding to consider a wider
system architecture. Many of the identified electronic methods are implemented on the University of
Aegean’s electronic platform to deal with issues like multi-campus disconnection and student
alienation due to geographical spread of the university’s campus, giving authors first hand
information.

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:
ƒ Deployment Complexity: How difficult is the deployment of an e-participation tool?
ƒ Information Richness: What amount of information is the specific e-method able to contain?
ƒ Security: Can the user’s navigation be secured?
ƒ Interactivity: To what degree are the communication channels unidirectional or bidirectional?
ƒ 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.
www.ejeg.com 198 ©Academic Conferences Ltd

Dimitrios Zissis, Dimitrios Lekkas and Anastasia-Evangelia Papadopoulou

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.
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 2: SWOT Analysis for webCasts
Strengths Weaknesses
Accessibility: HIGH
Information Richness: HIGH
Privacy: HIGH
Security: HIGH
User Technical Knowledge Required: LOW
Deployment Complexity: HIGH
Interactivity: LOW
Scalability: MODERATE
User Hardware Requirements: HIGH
Opportunities Threats
Information Provision
Electioneering
Real Time Video Player might create accessibility
issues
Large Hardware Requirements and High
Complexity in Deployment in case of scalability due
to large amount of data stored
Table 3: SWOT analysis for FAQs
Strengths Weaknesses
Accessibility: HIGH
Deployment Complexity: LOW
Privacy: HIGH
Security: HIGH
User Hardware Requirements: LOW
User Technical Knowledge Required: LOW
Information Richness: MODERATE
Interactivity: LOW
Scalability: MODERATE
Opportunities Threats
Information Provision
Electioneering
May not fully inform a user
Navigation and search problems
Table 4: SWOT Analysis for blogs
Strengths Weaknesses
Accessibility: HIGH
Deployment Complexity: LOW
User Hardware Requirements: LOW
User Technical Knowledge Required: LOW
Information Richness: MODERATE Interactivity:
MODERATE
Privacy: MODERATE
Security: MODERATE
Scalability: MODERATE
Opportunities Threats
Information Provision
Campaigning
Electioneering
Discourse
Information provided could be one sided if only
authors opinion expressed
Privacy issues could be a problem
www.ejeg.com 199 ISSN 1479-439X

Electronic Journal of e-Government Volume 7 Issue 2 2009 (pp195 - 208)
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.
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.
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 5: SWOT analysis for quick polls
Strengths Weaknesses
Accessibility: HIGH
Deployment Complexity: LOW
Privacy: HIGH
User Hardware Requirements: LOW
User Technical Knowledge Required: LOW
Information Richness: MODERATE
Interactivity: MODERATE
Scalability: MODERATE
Security: MODERATE
Opportunities Threats
Consultation
Campaigning
Electioneering
Polling
The same visitor could submit more than one
responses to a specific poll
Security could be an issue if input not validated
Table 6: SWOT analysis for surveys
Strengths Weaknesses
Accessibility: HIGH
Deployment Complexity: LOW
User Hardware Requirements: LOW
User Technical Knowledge Required: LOW
Information Richness: MODERATE
Interactivity: LOW
Privacy: MODERATE
Security: MODERATE
Scalability: LOW
Opportunities Threats
Consultation
Campaigning
Electioneering
Polling
Visitors’ privacy must be protected and no personal
or demographic data should be required
Security could be an issue if not implemented
carefully
Table 7: SWOT analysis for chat rooms
Strengths Weaknesses
Information Richness: HIGH
Interactivity: HIGH
User Hardware Requirements: LOW
User Technical Knowledge Required: LOW
Accessibility: MODERATE
Deployment Complexity: MODERATE
Privacy: LOW
Security: LOW
Scalability: LOW
Opportunities Threats
Information Provision
Community Building
Campaigning
Electioneering
Deliberation
Discourse
Mediation
A large number of visitors can create scalability
issues
Privacy must be maintained
www.ejeg.com 200 ©Academic Conferences Ltd

Dimitrios Zissis, Dimitrios Lekkas and Anastasia-Evangelia Papadopoulou

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
Interactivity: HIGH
User Technical Knowledge Required: LOW
Accessibility: LOW
Deployment Complexity: HIGH
Information Richness: MODERATE
Privacy: MODERATE
Security: MODERATE
Scalability: MODERATE
User Hardware Requirements: HIGH
Opportunities Threats
Information Provision
Community Building
Electioneering
A large number of visitors can create scalability
issues
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
Information Richness: HIGH
Interactivity: HIGH
User Hardware Requirements: LOW
User Technical Knowledge Required: LOW
Accessibility: MODERATE
Deployment Complexity: MODERATE
Privacy: LOW
Security: MODERATE
Scalability: MODERATE
Opportunities Threats
Information Provision
Community Building
Campaigning
Electioneering
Deliberation
Discourse
Mediation
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.
www.ejeg.com 201 ISSN 1479-439X

Electronic Journal of e-Government Volume 7 Issue 2 2009 (pp195 - 208)
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.
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 10: SWOT analysis for e-panels
Strengths Weaknesses
Information Richness: HIGH
Interactivity: HIGH

Accessibility: MODERATE
Deployment Complexity: HIGH
Privacy: MODERATE
Security: MODERATE
Scalability: MODERATE
User Hardware Requirements: MODERATE
User Technical Knowledge Required: MODERATE
Opportunities Threats
Information Provision
Consultation
Deliberation
Mediation
A large number of visitors can create scalability
issues
Privacy must be maintained
Table 11: SWOT analysis for e-petitions
Strengths Weaknesses
Information Richness: HIGH
Accessibility: MODERATE
Deployment Complexity: MODERATE
Interactivity: MODERATE
Privacy: LOW
Security: MODERATE
Scalability: MODERATE
User Hardware Requirements: MODERATE
User Technical Knowledge Required: MODERATE
Opportunities Threats
Consultation
Campaigning
Mediation
Polling
Data protection required
Table 12: SWOT analysis for e-deliberative polling
Strengths Weaknesses
Information Richness: HIGH
Interactivity: HIGH
Accessibility: MODERATE
Deployment Complexity: HIGH
Privacy: MODERATE
Security: MODERATE
Scalability: MODERATE
User Hardware Requirements: MODERATE
User Technical Knowledge Required: MODERATE
Opportunities Threats
Information Provision
Community Building
Consultation
Campaigning
Mediation
Polling
Data protection required
www.ejeg.com 202 ©Academic Conferences Ltd

Dimitrios Zissis, Dimitrios Lekkas and Anastasia-Evangelia Papadopoulou

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
Information Richness: HIGH
Interactivity: HIGH

Accessibility: MODERATE
Deployment Complexity: HIGH
Privacy: LOW
Security: LOW
Scalability: MODERATE
User Hardware Requirements: MODERATE
User Technical Knowledge Required: MODERATE
Opportunities Threats
Information Provision
Community Building
Electioneering
Deliberation
Discourse
Mediation
Data protection required
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
Accessibility: HIGH
Deployment Complexity: LOW
Privacy: HIGH
Security: HIGH
Scalability: HIGH
User Hardware Requirements: LOW
User Technical Knowledge Required: LOW
Information Richness: MODERATE
Interactivity: LOW
Opportunities Threats
Information Provision
Electioneering 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.

“Total Score” corresponds to the sum of an e-method’s rates [Total Score = Sum of an e-methods
Rates]

“Summary” corresponds to the weighted sum of the rates multiplied by the corresponding criteria
weights. [Summary = Sum (Rating * Weight for each criteria)]






www.ejeg.com 203 ISSN 1479-439X

Electronic Journal of e-Government Volume 7 Issue 2 2009 (pp195 - 208)
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 Score 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
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 19: Explanation of criteria weighting
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
www.ejeg.com 204 ©Academic Conferences Ltd

Dimitrios Zissis, Dimitrios Lekkas and Anastasia-Evangelia Papadopoulou

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.
Weights Criteria Reason
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.
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.
Table 20: e-Methods score fluctuation




www.ejeg.com 205 ISSN 1479-439X

Electronic Journal of e-Government Volume 7 Issue 2 2009 (pp195 - 208)








www.ejeg.com 206 ©Academic Conferences Ltd

Dimitrios Zissis, Dimitrios Lekkas and Anastasia-Evangelia Papadopoulou

Table 21: E-method’s synopsis
1: Webcasts: Ensure information richness but introduce serious drawbacks on user hardware
requirements and deployment complexity.
2: FAQ: Provide information in a simple and straightforward way while maintaining security and privacy.
Information can be single sided as usually only answers provided to set questions.
3:Blogs: Can provide a means to hold vast amount of information but essentially single sided.
4:Quick Polls: Offers a simple method for opinion exression while able to maintain users privacy and
security.
5: Surveys: A moderate tool for opinion expression that could posibly introduce security implications.
Information usually unidirectional, as candidates answer pre-set questions.
6: Chat Rooms: A trully biderectional information exchange method but with serious privacy and security
weaknesses.
7: Decision-Making Games: A highly engaging interactive solution but with serious disadvantages on
accessibility, deployment complexity and user hardware requirements.
8: Discussion Forums: An interactive platform capable of meeting biderectional information exchange
needs but with privacy weaknesses.
9: e-Panels: A vast amount of information can be exchanged through such a method but with a complex
deployment cost.
10: e-Petitions: An opinion expression platform with serious privacy issues.
11: e-Deliberative Polling: A complex electronic method to deploy that can provide rich information.
12: Virtual Communities: Highly complex to deploy interactive information exchange and opinion
expression platform at the cost of security and privacy.
13: Alert Mechanisms – E-mail alerts and RSS Feeds: A secure and straightforward method of
biderectional information exchange.
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 the particular e-method has.

Accurate identification of user requirements and needs is the only guarantee of successful system
design. The selection of electronic methods to be implemented according to identified requirements is
of grave importance. A information system focusing on meeting the needs of a wide and diversified
public, interested in conforming with accessibility guidelines could make use of webcasts, blogs, faqs,
quickpolls, surveys and alerts mechanisms but should avoid implementing decision making games.
On the other hand, design teams interested in designing highly interactive information systems, not
steering clear of high deployment complexity and hardware requirements, should consider making
use of decision making games, chat rooms, discussion forums, e-panels, e-deliberative forums and
online communities. It is decisive that systems with high privacy and security requirements should
avoid chat rooms and online communities, except if they are operated under surveillance.

Meeting the goals stated and effectively countering the identified requirements is always a complex
step in system design. Efficiently performing systems have evolved from careful and detailed planning
on the drawing board to real world operating systems.
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
www.ejeg.com 207 ISSN 1479-439X

Electronic Journal of e-Government Volume 7 Issue 2 2009 (pp195 - 208)
www.ejeg.com 208 ©Academic Conferences Ltd
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
Van Dijk, Jan ‘Models of Democracy and Concepts of Communication’. In Hacker, K.L and Jan van Dijk., (2000).
(eds) Digital Democracy issues of theory and practice. Sage Publications