Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A blockchain-powered e-cognocracy model for democratic decision making

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Information Systems and e-Business Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Electronic governance is used to empower citizens and help governments and organizations with strategic decision-making or policy-making. E-democracy and e-participation methods are essential tools used to engage citizens in decision-making. One of the recent e-democracy models is known as e-cognocracy. While having advantages relative to traditional e-democracy models, e-cognocracy still faces challenges such as fraud, centralization, information failure (voting paradox), and participation rate. This paper aims to design a blockchain-based electronic democracy model on a smart contract using e-cognocracy as the base model and the concept of futarchy and prediction markets. Using the design science research methodology, a three-stage blockchain-powered e-cognocracy method for democratic decision-making is developed. The proposed method of research includes three main stages: (1) Setting the problem, (2) the voting process, and (3) knowledge diffusion and evaluation, and the stage are done through several activities. This method is implemented as a smart contract on the Ethereum platform. Using the power of blockchain technology and the economic incentive model of futarchy, this method overcomes three main challenges for e-cognocracy. To demonstrate the methodology, it was applied in a real-case experience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

(Source: Moreno-Jiménez et al. 2014)

Fig. 2

(Source:

Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

(Source: Ethereum Blog)

Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Voting paradox means the total perceived benefits of voting are less than the costs paid for a vote in the view of voters.

References

  • 2014/06/CrossStateCheckStatistics.pdf

  • Aris MS, Putri DEK, Putra GA, Nugraha X (2023) The blockchain-based on E-voting in the local elections system: an effort to realize E-democracy. Jurnal Pembaharuan Hukum 10(1):27–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baudier P, Kondrateva G, Ammi C, Seulliet E (2021) Peace engineering: the contribution of blockchain systems to the e-voting process. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 162:120397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benítez-Martínez FL, Hurtado-Torres MV, Romero-Frías E (2021) A neural blockchain for a tokenizable e-Participation model. Neurocomputing 423:703–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bindu N, Sankar CP, Kumar KS (2019) From conventional governance to e-democracy: tracing the evolution of e-governance research trends using network analysis tools. Gov Inf Q 36(3):385–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhme R, Christin N, Edelman B, Moore T (2015) Bitcoin: economics, technology, and governance. J Econ Perspect 29(2):213–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buterin V (2016) What is ethereum? Ethereum Official webpage. Available: http://www.ethdocs.org/en/latest/introduction/what-is-ethereum.html

  • Carvalho A, Karimi M (2021) Aligning the interests of newsvendors and forecasters through blockchain-based smart contracts and proper scoring rules. Decis Support Syst 151:113626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl RA (2000) On democracy. Yale Nota Bene, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Dannen C (2017) Introducing Ethereum and solidity, vol 1, pp 159–160

  • de Jager A, van Reijswoud V (2008) E-governance in the developing world in action. J Community Inform 4(2):66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng Q, Ji S (2018) A review of design science research in information systems: concept, process, outcome, and evaluation. Pac Asia J Assoc Inf Syst 10(1):2

    Google Scholar 

  • Dresch A, Lacerda DP, Antunes JAV Jr, Dresch A, Lacerda DP, Antunes JAV (2015) Design science research. Springer International Publishing, pp 67–102

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ethereum Foundation (n.d.) What is Ethereum? Retrieved from https://ethereum.org/en/what-is-ethereum/

  • Feroz Khan G, Young Yoon H, Kim J, Woo Park H (2014) From e-government to social government: Twitter use by Korea’s central government. Online Inf Rev 38(1):95–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guegan D (2017) Public blockchain versus private blockhain

  • Hanson R (2003–2013) Shall we vote on values, but bet on beliefs. J Polit Philos.

  • Haskell J (2001) Direct democracy or representative government. Dispelling the Populist Mith. Westview Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hrivas MK, Yeboah T (2018) The disruptive blockchain: types, platforms and applications. In: Fifth Texila world conference for scholars (TWCS) on transformation: the creative potential of interdisciplinary

  • Hussien H, Aboelnaga H (2013) Design of a secured e-voting system. In: 2013 International conference on computer applications technology (ICCAT). IEEE, pp 1–5

  • Ibrahimy MM, Norta A, Normak P (2022) Achieving corruption-transparency in service governance processes with blockchain-technology based e-participation. In: International conference on web engineering. Springer, Cham, pp 417–425

  • Kersting N (2012) Electronic democracy. Verlag Barbara Budrich

  • Khoury D, Kfoury EF, Kassem A, Harb H (2018) Decentralized voting platform based on ethereum blockchain. In: 2018 IEEE international multidisciplinary conference on engineering technology (IMCET). IEEE, pp 1–6

  • Kneuer M (2016) E-democracy: a new challenge for measuring democracy. Int Polit Sci Rev 37(5):666–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kneuer M, Datts M (2020) E-democracy and the matter of scale. Revisiting the democratic promises of the internet in terms of the spatial dimension. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 61(2):285–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kube N (2018) Daniel Drescher: blockchain basics: a non-technical introduction in 25 steps

  • Moreno-Jiménez JM, Polasek W (2003) e-democracy and knowledge. A multicriteria framework for the new democratic era. J Multi-criteria Decis Anal 12(2–3):163–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Jiménez JM, Pérez-Espés C, Velázquez M (2014) e-Cognocracy and the design of public policies. Gov Inf Q 31(1):185–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Jiménez JM, Pérez-Espés C, Rivera-Torres P (2020) Relevant aspects for an EF3-evaluation of e-Cognocracy. Mathematics 8(2):277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakamoto S (2008) Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Decentralized Business Review

  • Nam T (2017) A tool for liberty or oppression a cross-national study of the internet’s influence on democracy. Telemat Inform 34(5):538–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Päivärinta T, Sæbø Ø (2006) Models of e-democracy. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 17(1):37

    Google Scholar 

  • Palvia SCJ, Sharma SS (2007) E-government and e-governance: definitions/domain framework and status around the world. In: International conference on e-governance, pp 1–12

  • Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Rothenberger MA, Chatterjee S (2007) A design science research methodology for information systems research. J Manag Inf Syst 24(3):45–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peffers K, Rothenberger M, Tuunanen T, Vaezi R (2012) Design science research evaluation. In: International conference on design science research in information systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 398–410

  • Peña-López I et al (2016) Un e-government survey 2016. E-government in support of sustainable development. Tech. Rep., UNPAN. URL http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/internet/documents/UNPAN96407.Pdf

  • Poblet M, Allen DW, Konashevych O, Lane AM, Diaz Valdivia CA (2020) From Athens to the Blockchain: oracles for digital democracy. Front Blockchain 41:66

    Google Scholar 

  • Qi R, Feng C, Liu Z, Mrad N (2017) Blockchain-powered internet of things, e-governance and e-democracy. In: E-democracy for smart cities, pp 509–520. Springer, Singapore, pp 509–520

  • Racsko P (2019) Blockchain and democracy. Soc Econ 41(3):353–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Reis JCG D, Melão N (2023) E-democracy: artificial intelligence, politics and state modernization

  • Salazar JL, Piles JJ, Ruiz-Mas J, Moreno-Jiménez JM (2010) Security approaches in e-cognocracy. Comput Stand Interfaces 32(5–6):256–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szabo N (1997) The idea of smart contracts. Nick Szabo’s papers and concise tutorials

  • Tambouris E, Gorilas S (2003) Evaluation of an e-democracy platform for European cities. In: International conference on electronic government. Springer, Berlin, pp 43–48

  • Tanwar S, Gupta N, Kumar P, Hu YC (2023) Implementation of blockchain-based e-voting system. Multimedia Tools Appl 66:1–32

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (2005) Towards knowledge societies. UNESCO world report. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001418/141843.pdf

  • United Nations. (n.d.). E-Government Development Index. United Nations E-Government Knowledge Base. Retrieved from https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/About/Overview/-E-Government-Development-Index

  • Vladucu MV, Dong Z, Medina J, Rojas-Cessa R (2023) E-voting meets blockchain: a survey. IEEE Access 11:23293–23308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weimer DL, Vining AR (1999) Policy analysis. Concepts and practices. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieringa RJ (2014) What is design science? In: Design science methodology for information systems and software engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–11

  • Yaga D, Mell P, Roby N, Scarfone K (2019) Blockchain technology overview. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.11078

  • Yang X, Yi X, Nepal S, Han F (2018). Decentralized voting: a self-tallying voting system using a smart contract on the ethereum blockchain. In: International conference on web information systems engineering. Springer, Cham, pp 18–35

  • Zheng Z, Xie S, Dai HN, Chen X, Wang H (2018) Blockchain challenges and opportunities: a survey. Int J Web Grid Serv 14(4):352–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng Z, Xie S, Dai HN, Chen W, Chen X, Weng J, Imran M (2020) An overview on smart contracts: challenges, advances, and platforms. Futur Gener Comput Syst 105:475–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman JF (1986) Participatory democracy. Populism revived. Praeger, NY

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economics and Management, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

    Sepehr Ghazinoory & Amirhosein Mardani

  2. ECE Department, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    Mohammad Ali Maddah-Ali

  3. ECE Department, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

    Gholam Ali Montazer

Authors
  1. Sepehr Ghazinoory
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amirhosein Mardani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammad Ali Maddah-Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gholam Ali Montazer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sepehr Ghazinoory.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

At the end of the democratic process of blockchain-powered e-Cognocracy in the IFA, to evaluate the overall experience of the method, a questionnaire based on the EF3 evaluation model was designed. The questionnaire is valid when over 90 percent of the questions were answered. The measurement scale of the questionnaire is from 0 (totally disagree) to 10 (totally agree). This questionnaire is based on Moreno-Jimenez et al. work on the EF3 evaluation method in 2021.

  1. (i)

    The system of member participation

    • In the current system of participation, the association represents my opinions and defends my interest

    • Individuals have a role in association decision-making

    • Companies have a role in association decision-making

    • Individuals should participate in the design of decisions

    • Individuals should make decisions in conjunction with companies

    • The IFA take individual opinions into account for decision-making

    • The IFA take companies' opinions into account for decision-making

    • The IFA administration informs members about the existing mechanisms of citizen participation

    • The IFA administration informs the members about the decision taken

    • The IFA administration informs the ecosystem and industry about the decision taken

    • Blockchain-powered e-Cognocracy contributes to the creation of a better society

  2. (ii)

    The creation of a better society

    • Participation is limited to member consultation by the IFA board

    • Participation includes debate/discussion with members, but the decision is taken by the IFA board.

    • Participation allows the joint decision between the IFA board and members

  3. (iii)

    Motivation

    • I cannot miss the opportunity to be part of a member participation initiative like this one

    • I think it is a very important opportunity to express my opinion

    • I believe that this initiative will allow me to enrich myself as a person

    • I am interested in participating in cryptocurrency regulation activities

    • I do not agree with the current regulation in the cryptocurrency industry

  4. (iv)

    Evaluation of the Technology Support and Applications:

    • The computer equipment was adequate

    • The presentation structure of the program was simple and understandable

    • It was easy and comfortable to work with blockchain wallets

    • There were too many errors/incidents in the computer application

    • The web page was very well designed

    • The voting system was easy to use

    • The discussion system for the incorporation of arguments was adequate

    • The discussion system allowed me to know and share opinions

    • I consider that my anonymity was assured throughout the entire process

    • In general, I liked the design of the software application

    • In general, I am satisfied with the computer application used

  5. (v)

    Evaluation of the Information:

    • It was easy to understand

    • It was suitable

    • It was received on time

    • There were virtually no errors

    • In general, I am satisfied with the information that I have received

  6. (vi)

    Evaluation of the Support Staff

    • They helped my involvement in the member participation process

    • They gave me additional information

    • Without the support staff, I would not have been able to participate

    • Overall, I am satisfied with the help of the support staff

  7. (vii)

    Overall Evaluation:

    • I enjoyed participating in this initiative

    • I have learned a lot from the experience

    • I feel that my participation has improved my ingenuity and creativity

    • The experience allowed me to feel involved in regulatory decision making

    • My perception of social belonging in my association has increased (identity)

    • The discussions in the forum influenced my decisions

    • Participating in this experience was not a waste of time

    • I would participate again in a similar experience

    • Other associations should incorporate this type of member participation

    • Blockchain-powered e-Cognocracy improves the current democratic system

    • I feel satisfied with my participation in this initiative

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ghazinoory, S., Mardani, A., Maddah-Ali, M.A. et al. A blockchain-powered e-cognocracy model for democratic decision making. Inf Syst E-Bus Manage 22, 209–246 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-023-00663-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-023-00663-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation