Advertisement

Democratic Process and Digital Platforms: An Engineering Perspective

  • Danilo PianiniEmail author
  • Andrea Omicini
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11300)

Abstract

The widespread adoption of digital technologies and computational devices, along with their pervasiveness in our everyday life, is going to make them hugely impact over all key processes in human societies-including the democratic one. The last decade has witnessed the emergence of many tools and platforms for digital democracy. However, also because of the huge social and political pressure, such emergence has possibly been too tumultuous, leaving several fundamental concerns unanswered: among them, here we focus on those that belong to the engineering process. For instance, in a classic software engineering process, one or more artefacts are produced in the analysis phase that represent a formal, possibly machine understandable, model of the domain. Instead, looking at the most common e-democracy platforms, the step is seemingly missing, along with others that concur at building a solid engineering process. This chapter elaborates on the current status of digital democracy, and points out the main software engineering issues that current and future tools and platforms should address.

Keywords

Digital democracy Software engineering Democratic model 

References

  1. 1.
    Aragón, P., Gómez, V., Kaltenbrunner, A.: Measuring platform effects in digital democracy. In: The Internet, Policy & Politics Conference (IPPC 2016) (2016). http://blogs.oii.ox.ac.uk/ipp-conference/sites/ipp/files/documents/measuring-platform-effects-in-digital-democracy.pdf
  2. 2.
    Aydinli, Ö.F., Brinkkemper, S., Ravesteyn, P.: Business process improvement in organizational design of e-government services. Electron. J. e-Gov. 7(2), 123–134 (2009). http://ejeg.com/volume7/issue2/p123Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beck, K., Andres, C.: Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, 2nd (edn.) Addison-Wesley Professional (2004). http://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Beck-Extreme-Programming-Explained-Embrace-Change-2nd-Edition/PGM155384.html
  4. 4.
    Behrens, J., Kistner, A., Nitsche, A., Swierczek, B.: The Principles of LiquidFeedback. Interaktive Demokratie e.V. (2014). http://principles.liquidfeedback.org
  5. 5.
    Boehm, B.W.: A spiral model of software development and enhancement. Computer 21(5), 61–72 (1988). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/59/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ceccarini, L., Bordignon, F.: The five stars continue to shine: the consolidation of Grillo’s ‘movement party’ in Italy. Contemp. Ital. Polit. 8(2), 131–159 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1080/23248823.2016.1202667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choi, S.O., Kim, B.C.: Voter intention to use e-voting technologies: security, technology acceptance, election type, and political ideology. J. Inf. Technol. Polit. 9(4), 433–452 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.710042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clements, P., et al.: Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional (2010). http://www.pearsoned.co.uk/bookshop/detail.asp?item=100000000275802
  9. 9.
    Contucci, P., Panizzi, E., Ricci-Tersenghi, F., Sîrbu, A.: Egalitarianism in the rank aggregation problem: a new dimension for democracy. Qual. Quant. 50(3), 1185–1200 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-015-0197-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Corradini, F., Falcioni, D., Polini, A., Polzonetti, A., Re, B.: Designing quality business processes for E-government digital services. In: Wimmer, M.A., Chappelet, J.-L., Janssen, M., Scholl, H.J. (eds.) EGOV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6228, pp. 424–435. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14799-9_36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Corradini, F., Polini, A., Polzonetti, A., Re, B.: Business processes verification for E-government service delivery. Inf. Syst. Manag. 27(4), 293–308 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2010.514164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Damgård, I., Groth, J., Salomonsen, G.: The theory and implementation of an electronic voting system. In: Gritzalis, D.A. (ed.) Secure Electronic Voting, Advances in Information Security, vol. 7, pp. 77–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0239-5_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Erlingsson, G.Ó., Persson, M.: The Swedish pirate party and the 2009 European parliament election: protest or issue voting? Politics 31(3), 121–128 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.2011.01411.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Francesco, A.: Benchmarking electronic democracy. In: Anttiroiko, A.V., Malkia, M. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Digital Government, chap. 20, pp. 135-140. IGI Global (2007). http://www.igi-global.com/chapter/benchmarking-electonic-democracy/11494
  15. 15.
    Gardner, R.: The Borda game. Public Choice 30(1), 43–50 (1977).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01718817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grönlund, Å.: E-democracy: in search of tools and methods for effective participation. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 12(2–3), 93–100 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.349/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jungherr, A., Jürgens, P., Schoen, H.: Why the pirate party won the German election of 2009 or the trouble with predictions: a response to Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T.O., Sander, P.G., Welpe, I.M.: “predicting elections with Twitter: what 140 characters reveal about political sentiment”. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 30(2), 229–234 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439311404119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kardan, A.A., Sadeghiani, A.: Is E-government a way to E-democracy? A longitudinal study of the Iranian situation. Gov. Inf. Q. 28(4), 466–473 (2011). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X11000578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Layne, K., Lee, J.: Developing fully functional E-government: a four stage model. Gov. Inf. Q. 18(2), 122–136 (2001). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X01000661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Montgomery, K.C.: Youth and digital democracy: intersections of practice, policy, and the marketplace. In: Bennett, W.L. (ed.) Civic Life Online. Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth, pp. 25–49. The MIT Press, hardcover edn., January 2008Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moynihan, D.P.: Building secure elections: E-voting, security, and systems theory. Public Adm. Rev. 64(5), 515–528 (2004). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00400.x/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Panagiotopoulos, P., Gionis, G., Psarras, J., Askounis, D.: Supporting public decision making in policy deliberations: an ontological approach. Oper. Res. 11(3), 281–298 (2011). http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12351-010-0081-3Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pardue, H., Landry, J.P., Yasinsac, A.: e-Voting risk assessment. Int. J. Inf. Secur. Priv. 5(3), 19–35 (2011). http://www.igi-global.com/gateway/article/58980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pivato, M.: Condorcet meets Bentham. J. Math. Econ. 59, 58–65 (2015). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304406815000518MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ralph, P., Wand, Y.: A proposal for a formal definition of the design concept. In: Lyytinen, K., Loucopoulos, P., Mylopoulos, J., Robinson, B. (eds.) Design Requirements Engineering: A Ten-Year Perspective. LNBIP, vol. 14, pp. 103–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92966-6_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Royce, W.W.: Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and techniques. In: 9th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1987), pp. 328–338. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1987). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=41801
  27. 27.
    Rubin, A.D.: Security considerations for remote electronic voting. Commun. ACM 45(12), 39–44 (2002). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=585599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schmitter, P.C., Karl, T.L.: What democracy is... and is not. J. Democr. 2(3), 75–88 (1991). http://muse.jhu.edu/article/225590/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schulze, M.: A new monotonic and clone-independent single-winner election method. Voting Matters 17, 9–19 (2003). http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/issue17/i17p3.pdfGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schumpeter, J.A.: Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 1st edn. Harper & Brothers, New York City (1942)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schwaber, K., Beedle, M.: Agile Software Development with Scrum, 1st (edn.) Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2001). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=559553
  32. 32.
    Stapleton, J.: Shop Books DSDM, Dynamic Systems Development Method: The Method in Practice. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1997). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=523335
  33. 33.
    Tronconi, F. (ed.): Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement Organisation, Communication and Ideology. Routledge (2015). http://www.routledge.com/Beppe-Grillos-Five-Star-Movement-Organisation-Communication-and-Ideology/Tronconi/p/book/9781472436634
  34. 34.
    Wimmer, M., Bredow, B.v.: A holistic approach for providing security solutions in e-Government. In: 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2002), pp. 1715–1724. IEEE Computer Society (2002). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/994083/
  35. 35.
    Xenakis, A., Macintosh, A.: Procedural security in electronic voting. In: 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2004). IEEE, Big Island, 5–8 January 2004. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1265299/
  36. 36.
    Yang, L., Lan, G.Z.: Internet’s impact on expert-citizen interactions in public policymaking–a meta analysis. Gov. Inf. Q. 27(4), 431–441 (2010). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X1000064X, Special Issue: Open/Transparent GovernmentCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Young, H.P.: Condorcet’s theory of voting. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 82(4), 1231–1244 (1988). http://www.jstor.org/stable/1961757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    de Zúñiga, H.G., Veenstra, A., Vraga, E., Shah, D.: Digital democracy: reimagining pathways to political participation. J. Inf. Technol. Polit. 7(1), 36–51 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1080/19331680903316742CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alma Mater Studiorum-Università di BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations