Parademo: e-Democracy Based on a Delegated Expert Selection Process in a Small-World Network

  • Ronny Siebes
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 26)


Many countries have a representative democracy where their governments consist of a relatively small group of politicians that represent the values and beliefs of the majority of the voters. Unfortunately, many citizens are un- satisfied with their rather limited influence on politics especially regarding governments on national level or even higher like the EU or the UN. On the other side, referenda or direct democracies seem to be a too risky way of letting un- knowledgeable or uninterested individuals decide over complex issues. We mainly have these extreme opposites in our democracies due to the limitations of our manually maintained ballot system. Initiatives like Vivarto propose an alternative, called ’Delegated voting’ where parts of a vote can be delegated to people with more knowledge on a certain topic. This leads to a convenient position in the middle between both mentioned extremes. We want to use the vast amount of expertise of many online citizens in our societies in selecting the right politicians and solutions. In this paper we propose the design of system called Parademo, that enables a fine-grained e-democracy. Next to this we briefly describe how we can achieve more transparency and third-party functionality by allowing listeners to subscribe to specific information-streams within communities that are formalized in a Semantic-Web language.


E-democracy Small-world expertise Tokens Fine-grained voting delegation Semantic Web Voting Cafés 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Nordfors, M., et al.: The demoex portal (2006),
  2. 2.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P., van Harmelen, F.: From shiq and rdf to owl: the making of a web ontology language. Web Semantics 1, 7–26 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jefferson, D., Rubin, A.D., Simons, B., Wagner, D.: Analyzing internet voting security. Commun. ACM 47(10), 59–64 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Krimmer, R. (ed.): Electronic Voting 2006: 2nd International Workshop, Co-organized by Council of Europe, ESF TED, IFIP WG 8.6 and E-Voting. CC, August 2- 4, 2006 in Castle Hofen, Bregenz, Austria. LNI, vol. 86. GI (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Madise, Ü., Martens, T.: E-voting in estonia 2005. the first practice of country-wide binding internet voting in the world. In: Krimmer [4], pp. 15–26 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Milgram, S.: The small world problem. Psychology Today 31(2), 60–67 (1967)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nazir, A., Raza, S., Chuah, C.N.: Unveiling facebook: a measurement study of social network based applications. In: IMC 2008: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement, pp. 43–56. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rodriges-Filho, J., Alexander, C., Batista, L.: E-voting in Brazil - the risks to democracy. In: Electronic Voting 2006. GI Lecture Notes in Informatics, pp. 85–94 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rubin, A.D.: Security considerations for remote electronic voting. Commun. ACM 45(12), 39–44 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sabater, J., Sierra, C.: Regret: reputation in gregarious societies. In: AGENTS 2001: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Autonomous agents, pp. 194–195. ACM, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saebo, O., Pivrinta, T.: Defining the ”e” in e-democracy: a genre lens on it artifacts. In: 29th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Science, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronny Siebes
    • 1
  1. 1.VU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations