Data

General Issues
Economics
Planning & Development
Location
Niedersachsen
Germany
Scope of Influence
Regional
Ongoing
Yes

CASE

LiquidFriesland

February 22, 2015 ollor101
December 13, 2014 ollor101
General Issues
Economics
Planning & Development
Location
Niedersachsen
Germany
Scope of Influence
Regional
Ongoing
Yes
This entry was originally added in German. View this entry in its original language. click for more info

LiquidFriesland

Summary

LiquidFriesland is the first attempt to use the LiquidFeedback software, which until then had only been used by companies and parties, for public participation. Citizens of Friesland entitled to vote in local elections can start, discuss and vote on the software initiatives. The Frisian District Council has voluntarily committed to discuss any proposal that achieves the necessary quorums.

method

Every Frisian citizen over 16 years of age can apply for an access code to LiquidFriesland, which he will then receive, including instructions on how to proceed. With this code he can register on the LiquidFriesland platform. From then on, he is authorized to initiate, discuss, vote on, or delegate his voice to someone else.

Once an initiative has started, it goes through four phases:

  1. New: First quorum: An initiative needs a certain amount of supporters to move on to the next phase.
  2. Discussion: The first quorum has been reached, the initiative can now be discussed. Proposals for changes can be made, alternative initiatives on the same topic can be started.
  3. Frozen: If all initiatives have been discussed at a certain point in time, they will be 'frozen'. No initiative can be changed in this period, a certain time before the vote is guaranteed.
  4. Voting: Now all initiatives on a topic are finally voted on. If there are several initiatives, you can put them in order using a preference list. This ensures, among other things, that initiatives with similar content do not outstrip each other and therefore win an initiative that is disadvantageous for everyone, which is a known problem with many other citizen participation platforms.

“Top-down” suggestions, that is, those made available by the administration for discussion, skip the first part and start directly with the discussion phase.

The Frisian District Council has voluntarily committed to discuss any initiative that wins the vote. This does not mean that the proposal must also be accepted: The received proposals are understood as 'suggestions' within the meaning of §34 of the Lower Saxony municipal constitution and therefore do not entail any legal obligation. The decision-making authority thus remains with the district council.

particularities

Compared to other investment platforms, LiquidFriesland is characterized by some special features, some of which have already been mentioned:

Firstly, the district council's obligation to deal with every proposal: this is probably one of the most relevant innovations or advantages of LiquidFriesland. This is intended to increase the motivation to submit suggestions yourself. Other forms of participation often have to face criticism that citizens' suggestions are not taken seriously or are not included in the decision-making process. LiquidFriesland thus counteracts this problem. Nevertheless, it can be said that LiquidFriesland is not a real means of direct democracy, but only offers a platform to improve representative democracy.

Secondly, the combination of bottom-up and top-down proposals: the platform thus serves on the one hand to bring in the ideas of the citizens, and on the other hand to discuss the ideas “from above”, ie from the administrative level. This is unusual, also for the LiquidFeedback software, but increases the use of the platform.

Third, continuity: LiquidFriesland is not a temporary project. It always runs and not only at certain times. This is to ensure the "liquid democracy" idea, that is, the "liquefaction" of the borders between representative and direct democracy: The citizen can, at least as far as theory, intervene at any time in current events and express his ideas through initiatives or discussions .

Fourthly, the use of the LiquidFeedback software: This opens up the possibility of structuring the initiatives according to topics, in order to avoid the aforementioned problem of "double initiatives". The software also offers the option of delegating votes, which means that I can delegate my own voice to a person of my choice on a specific topic. This "delegated voting" is one of the basic principles of "Liquid Democracy". In practice, the deleting of votes at LiquidFriesland (at least until now) is almost not used.

The lack of a moderator is another special feature of the LiquidFeedback system. The structure of the software enables the participants to moderate each other practically, through voting, proposed changes and the pooling of similar initiatives on the same topic.

Participant selection

Every Friesland citizen over 16 years of age can participate, i.e. anyone who is entitled to vote in Friesland under local law.

financing

The district of Friesland pays for the costs. According to the company, they amount to 11400 euros for the first year, including initial setup. The cost per additional current year is estimated at 7140 euros. (See evaluation report June 2013) These, by comparison, very low costs can be explained, among other things, by the lack of a moderator, who is not required for the LiquidFeedback software.

evaluation

Unless otherwise stated, all of the following figures and data come from the September 2014 evaluation report.

A total of around 550 have registered for LiquidFriesland. Around 43% of LiquidFriesland users are over 50 years old. There is an underrepresentation of under 30s and an overrepresentation of over 30s. Only 22% of the users registered with LiquidFriesland are women. The user structure evident from this corresponds to that of other online participation platforms. This is problematic and points to the phenomenon that opportunities for online participation do not address previously unreached groups, but only give groups that are already participating a new opportunity to participate. However, this may only apply if you look at the aggregated, demographic groups. If you look at the individual users, the following results: For 18% of the users registered with LiquidFriesland, public participation was not an issue at all before. (see master thesis Diefenbach, 2013). Thus, at the individual level, parties who were not previously involved could be won over for political participation. With around 550 participants in total, this corresponds to only 33 people. This contrasts with a large proportion, almost 60%, of users who consider themselves to be "very interested" in local politics, as well as around 72%, for example, who have already participated in a signature collection. (cf. ibid.). For most users of LiquidFriesland, the political interest was there even before the platform was launched. This is also shown by the above-average participation in elections, which characterizes LiquidFriesland users compared to the rest of the population.

rating

Over 86% of users are "fairly satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the introduction of the LiquidFriesland platform. For the participating citizens, the platform can be rated as a success, despite opportunities for improvement. The only question left is whether one can speak of success with a number of around 550 users in a district with over 85,000 people.

This question was also discussed in the media. There are two opposing positions here: First, that of Stefan Eisel, who emphasized that the number of users is very small and that the initiators should think about it. He rates the project as a failure. (See "LiquidFriesland - A Failed Experiment", 2014). This contrasts with the position of Sönke Klug, the press spokesman for the Friesland district, who accused Eisel of a "strange understanding of democracy" in the media debate. (see open letter from Sönke Klug, 2014). Success cannot be measured by the number of users: “Around 550 people who are interested in district politics, who can be informed by newsletter, are significantly more than before who actively exercise their civil rights. In our view, this is a great success. ”(Ibid.). So we have a subjectively positive evaluation of the participating users, as well as a conflicting one about the success of the project, measured by the number of users.

Two other criteria can be set with regard to success: First: Do the registered users also use the platform? Second, to what extent are the initiatives being implemented?

First of all, it can be said that of the approximately 550 participants, 378 have actively contributed through initiation, discussion or coordination. This is a comparatively high proportion for online participation projects. However, the total number of initiatives decreases significantly over time, as this graphic, also from the September 2014 evaluation report (p. 1), clearly shows.

And what about implementation? Here too, a graphic from the 2014 evaluation report (p. 2) can be cited.

The proportion of initiatives not implemented is very small compared to similar civic participation projects. The initiatives that are categorized as “already in place” are comparatively few. This can be attributed to the "self-moderation" in the sense of the LiquidFeedback software, in which collective intelligence counteracts redundant suggestions. The socio-demographic composition, the previous commitment of the users, as well as their non-anonymity also indicate or lead to the fact that the participation takes place at a high level in terms of content.

outlook

The initiators rated the LiquidFriesland project as a success. The costs are also manageable. However, participation on the platform is steadily declining. In addition, the group of users is relatively small. In order to have a future and be a role model for other similar projects, Friesland must probably look for ways to make participation attractive to other user groups and over a longer period of time.

sources

Edit case