LiquidFeedback | Big Policy Canvas

LiquidFeedback is an open-source software, powering internet platforms for proposition development and decision making. It is designed to work with large groups with real conflicts using strict rules in a predefined process without moderator interference. It is currently used by political parties, associations, corporations and for civic participation. More information can be obtained on the website of Interaktive Demokratie e. V.

Type of content: Assets

Type of asset:

Application / Tool

Big data potential

Yes

Policy domains: Innovation, Science & Technology

Phase in the policy cycle:

Policy Implementation

TRL

Open license availability

Yes

Website

https://liquidfeedback.org/index.en.html

Serves:

Addresses:

SWOT Analysis for LiquidFeedback
	Helpful	Harmful
Internal	Strengths• Fair, robust, reliable. • Equal Privileges, Large Groups, , Strong Transparency, Reliability • Decisions are made by recorded vote. All data is available, both human- and machine-readable. • Easy to use.: Optimal user guidance. Modern user interface which is easy to use. Help and guidance to its features. Voting on an issue by simply drag and drop the alternatives to “approval” or “disapproval” box. • Can be adapted to your corporate identity. integration with existing solutions is possible. • Using the “active” member count as reference population • Include a mechanism called “issue limiter”, which adaptively adjusts the admission quorum for issues based on the number of currently open issues that have already been admitted in the respective subject area. The basic principle behind the “issue limiter” is that increasing the number of open and admitted issues by a given absolute count increases the required supporter count by a certain (constant) factor. In turn, issues that are closed (e.g. because of finally having been voted upon) reduce the required supporter count by the same factor. This results in an exponential (or logarithmic) correlation between the number of open issues and the currently required supporter count to let a new issue pass to discussion phase.	Weaknesses• Legally binding privacy statement in German only • Security experts have voiced significant concerns over the trustworthiness of e-voting systems. • The effects of enlisting in a subject area are difficult to explain to a user of the software. Often participants won't actively update the subject areas they are interested in or engaged in. • The requirement to select subject areas is an obstacle when integrating with other software components. • A minority exceeding the configured quorum in its size will be capable to flood the system with proposals. While LiquidFeedback provides a system that restricts participants to not post more than a configurable count of proposals within a given time, this approach doesn't scale as the number of participants grows. • The “issue limiter” approach doesn't yet take into account that different issues may have different runtimes. Counterintuitively, open issues that have a shorter runtime should be weighted more (i.e. increase the required supporter count more) because an equilibrium of N open issues that have a short runtime require more interactions of the participants than N open issues with a longer runtime. • Its adoption by political parties has yielded mixed results.
External	Opportunities• Various application fields including: o Corporations (employee participation, product development, data revision systems) o Cooperatives (digital assembly) o Political Parties (digital assembly) o Civil Society Organizations (digital assembly) o Cities, counties and other municipalities (civic participation) • Digital transformation: majority of continuously successful global organisations are evolving traditional methods to obtain customer feedback	Threats• Not suitable for consultations where secret voting is desired or required.: It implements a voting system that is recorded and verifiable by anybody. The public nature of voting, however, comes at a cost. Because in modern democracies the privacy and anonymity of voting are considered essential to protect individual autonomy and freedom of choice • Electronic frauds • Security experts have voiced significant concerns over the trustworthiness of e-voting systems.

Open data - Download the Knowledge base

You are free to download the data of this Knowledge base.

To do this you must be an authenticated user: log in or sign in now.

All the data are licensed as Creative Common CC-BY 4.0.