e-Vote

The main objective of the e-Vote initiative was to enrich and reinvigorate democratic dialogue across Europe, both amongst ordinary citizens and between people and their leaders. One of the key considerations behind this experiment was the Greek Presidency's commitment to reduce the democratic deficit of the European Union and to ensure that its institutions responded to European citizen's real concerns and needs. e-Vote actively solicited public views in a way that made the deliberations in the European Union more inclusive, accountable, transparent and, ultimately, more democratic. The e-Vote initiative was designed to probe the potential of the Internet for enhancing citizen participation in European Union decision- and policy-making processes. It did not set out to merely survey public opinion but to involve citizens, mirroring the organisers’ belief that democracy is in fact a reciprocal process. E-vote was an interactive online forum using the latest technology, which aimed to: i) Offer citizens new ways to participate in key policy debates currently taking place in the European Union, thus strengthening their voice in the public policy process; ii) Encourage a sense of European citizenship by enabling people to share and compare their views on common policies and problems that affect their daily lives and their collective future; and iii) Bridge the gap between European citizens and their elected representatives. Online surveys of public opinion may not be as scientifically accurate as traditional polling, but they have the additional benefit of educating participants, by raising complex questions that elicit studied responses. e-Vote did not aspire to capture a snapshot of a passive public opinion, but was seen as an opportunity to engage the public (if indirectly) in ongoing political debates with their representatives. That is why e-Vote respondents were not simply invited to respond to fixed questions, but were invited to formulate their own comments and exchange their own ideas. Democracy is not simply a procedure to aggregate individual wants or values, but a process whereby individuals - through interaction - form their social and individual values. The focus on forming views and opinions, as opposed to simply registering opinions, was key to the e-Vote experiment. Eventually, one would hope that citizens will be involved in formulating the questions themselves, and devising ways to prioritise and tackle issues, rather than simply ‘passively’ signing a petition or taking to the streets to protest policies) that they feel do not represent their interests. e-Vote was endorsed by an extensive network of international media and nongovernmental organisations, which created links to their own websites encouraging users to participate. This proves that this type of initiative is also a useful tool for building bridges and partnerships between governments/institutions and non-governmental interest groups and activists.

e-Vote was a bold initiative of the Greek Presidency of the European Union (January-June 2003) to enhance and expand democracy across the EU. This innovative online voting project used the latest technologies to give citizens new ways to participate in ongoing debates and decisions about the key issues facing the Union, while preparing to undertake the biggest enlargement in its history. By visiting the website evote.eu2003.gr any citizen could vote on the important issues that affected their everyday lives, share and compare their ideas and opinions with other Europeans in real time, and make specific suggestions about the current and future EU. The e-Vote website at www.evote.eu2003.gr made a dual contribution: it offered informative content on current European issues and the opportunity to participate in and voice opinion on policy decisions related to these issues. It did so through a clear visual language and information architecture designed to be accessible to all users, irrespective of their familiarity with the medium. In order to accommodate cultural diversity, the e-Votes and the content were available in all eleven official languages of the European Union, as well as of the ten future member states. The site’s architecture provided one click-through access to information on EU basics and to background information to topical issues, so that citizens could be informed whilst expressing their opinion. The privacy of users was guaranteed throughout the e-Vote experience. The project comprised six questionnaires, or "e-Votes", on specific themes: The EU Today, The EU’s Role in the World, The Future of the EU, The Lisbon Agenda and Beyond, Immigration and Asylum and Sustainable Development. Additionally, there were special votes on breaking news and topical issues relating to the agenda of the Greek Presidency, such as the Iraq crisis and drug policy. Citizens were invited to respond to multiple choice questions on topical issues such as enlargement, immigration, the environment, and the European Union’s role in the world - issues that reflect the political and social priorities of the Greek Presidency’s agenda. All the results were public and available in real time. In addition, e-vote offered users the opportunity to voice their opinion in a free fashion by sending comments and suggestions to European leaders through the e-Voice feature, a service offered through an automated feedback form. Of the 60,000 e-Voices submitted, the seven most frequently asked questions were selected via word-usage ranking. Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller, Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel, and Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou responded directly to these questions online. The Greek Presidency contributed further to the e-vote process by sharing the results with top-level decision-makers. Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou regularly reported on the key findings to the Council of Ministers, so that people’s views fed directly into ongoing policy debates. Rather than simply being told what Ministerial councils were discussing, the public was empowered to engage in these discussions. Moreover, the Presidency did not shy away from asking controversial and even politically sensitive questions, not usually voiced through ‘traditional’ channels of communication with government bodies and official institutions. Both these facts contributed significantly to the project’s success.

• Consultation
• Discourse
• Information Provision
• Polling
• Voting