Abstract
This contribution looks at different forms of internet-based crowdsourcing to engage the general public in the legislative process. While defining the requirements that make this particular application of crowdsourcing possible and evaluating three representative examples (the Finnish off-road traffic law, the Icelandic constitution reform process, and the platform Madison in the United States), two main approaches are identified as the most promising forms of crowdsourcing in order to engage as many people as possible. These are Feedback/Commenting as well as Know-How Accumulation, both due to their ease of access. Furthermore, arguments for and against the use of crowdsourcing in the legislative process are presented. The overall conclusion, despite some hurdles, is positive in that citizen engagement via crowdsourcing, under the right circumstances, has the potential to lead to a more deliberative, representative, open and transparent process that also heightens governments accountability, increases the quality of newly drafted laws and improves the overall acceptance of democracy itself.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Howe (2006).
- 2.
Howe (n.d.).
- 3.
Oxford Dictionary of English (n.d.-a).
- 4.
https://www.innocentive.com/, accessed 29 August 2021.
- 5.
Where citizens can use a mobile app or website to send requests to their local governments, for example when they see a broken streetlight that needs fixing; https://seeclickfix.com/, accessed 29 August 2021.
- 6.
As the city of Chicago did in 2011 (Aitamurto, 2012, p. 23).
- 7.
As the region of Charlotte located in North and South Carolina with the CONNECT Our Future initiative; http://www.connectourfuture.org/, accessed 29 August 2021; (Warner, 2014).
- 8.
As on the discontinued platform Citizinvestor; www.citizinvestor.com/, last accessed 22 October 2017 (now taken offline).
- 9.
For a broader discussion of the various applications of crowdsourcing and crowdfunding in the democratic process see Soepper (2018).
- 10.
Rushkoff (2003), p. 56.
- 11.
See https://petition.parliament.uk/, accessed 29 August 2021.
- 12.
- 13.
A fork is a copy of the original code which anybody can create. Via a so-called pull request, changes to the new fork can be sent back to the original project. GitHub describes forking as being “…at the core of social coding on GitHub.”; https://guides.github.com/activities/forking/, accessed 29 August 2021.
- 14.
Heaton (2014).
- 15.
Shirky (2012).
- 16.
Aitamurto (2016), p. 2787.
- 17.
For a discussion of the wisdom of crowds, see Sect. 4 below.
- 18.
- 19.
Also, all three examples will serve important functions in the final discussion at the end of this paper.
- 20.
- 21.
http://stjornlagarad.is/, accessed 29 August 2021.
- 22.
https://www.facebook.com/Stjornlagarad, accessed 29 August 2021.
- 23.
https://twitter.com/Stjornlagarad, accessed 29 August 2021.
- 24.
https://www.youtube.com/user/Stjornlagarad, accessed 29 August 2021.
- 25.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stjornlagarad, accessed 29 August 2021.
- 26.
The Constitutional Council (n.d.).
- 27.
The Constitutional Council (n.d.).
- 28.
http://stjornlagarad.is/other_files/stjornlagarad/Frumvarp-enska.pdf, accessed 29 August 2021.
- 29.
Aitamurto (2012), p. 19.
- 30.
- 31.
Finley (2013).
- 32.
https://www.opengovfoundation.org/, accessed 29 August 2021.
- 33.
Finley (2013).
- 34.
https://github.com/opengovfoundation/madison, accessed 29 August 2021.
- 35.
https://mymadison.io/, accessed 29 August 2021. Though the website is still online, the Madison platform has been shut down as of 10 February 2019 (The Open Gov Foundation, 2019). However, since the source code is still freely available, the technology behind the platform could be used by anyone to set up a new platform.
- 36.
https://mymadison.io/#how-it-works, accessed 29 August 2021.
- 37.
Aitamurto and Landemore (2016), p. 178.
- 38.
- 39.
Aitamurto and Landemore (2015), p. 5.
- 40.
Aitamurto et al. (2014), p. 15.
- 41.
Aitamurto and Landemore (2016), p. 179.
- 42.
Aitamurto and Landemore (2016), p. 177.
- 43.
Aitamurto and Landemore (2016), p. 179.
- 44.
Aitamurto and Landemore (2015), p. 5.
- 45.
Aitamurto and Landemore (2016), p. 179.
- 46.
Aitamurto and Landemore (2016), p. 182.
- 47.
- 48.
Aitamurto et al. (2013).
- 49.
Surowiecki (2004).
- 50.
Mackay’s work may now be accessed freely via the Project Gutenberg archive: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/24518, accessed 29 August 2021.
- 51.
Shirky (2012).
- 52.
Shirky (2012).
- 53.
Surowiecki (2004), p. 178.
- 54.
Surowiecki (2004), p. 184.
- 55.
Surowiecki (2004), p. 10.
- 56.
Also, especially older people on average are not represented as much as younger generations and a lot of wisdom may be left out of the process. This concern may possibly be addressed by a mixed approach of crowdsourcing via public assemblies or paper questionnaires alongside internet-based platforms. However, even without such a mechanism, there currently is no other platform next to the internet, which allows for such a broad spectrum of opinions to be represented and aggregated by technical means.
- 57.
Anonymity is not a prerequisite for crowdsourcing though. If it is an advantage or a peril in crowdsourcing legal texts is yet to be determined. In the above presented example of the Finnish off-road traffic law, possible anonymity did not hinder the respectful exchange of arguments (Aitamurto & Landemore, 2016, p. 187). Furthermore, Aitamurto/Landemore note that “…partial depersonalization of the exchange arguably allows it to be more fluid and enduring than actual face-to-face exchanges involving physical persons.” (Aitamurto & Landemore, 2016, p. 186).
- 58.
It may be noted that of course other barriers than technical ones exist. One of the greatest barriers, despite the rapidly growing quality of translation services, is still language. It is unlikely that many users from other countries would be able to give input to an Icelandic or Finnish project. Also, the designers of any given platform may choose to limit access to the platform to people from a certain location (indicated by their IP addresses). This however would mitigate one of the benefits of crowdsourcing, namely that somebody from a different background and with a different point of view may be able to give valuable input to a project in which he/she has no direct stake.
- 59.
https://tippie.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/, accessed 29 August 2021.
- 60.
Berg et al. (2008), p. 5.
- 61.
Surowiecki (2004), p. 18.
- 62.
Aitamurto and Landemore (2015).
- 63.
Quotes taken from the overview table in (Aitamurto & Landemore, 2015, p. 10).
- 64.
Landemore (2013), p. 7.
- 65.
And this despite the fact, that the Finnish example was not designed for deliberation, but knowledge and idea search; deliberation just happened (Aitamurto & Landemore, 2016, p. 191).
- 66.
See definition of crowdsourcing in the introduction as well as Aitamurto and Landemore (2016), p. 177.
- 67.
Aitamurto and Landemore (2016), p. 186.
- 68.
Aitamurto and Landemore (2016), p. 181.
- 69.
Aitamurto et al. (2013).
- 70.
Aitamurto and Landemore (2015), p. 6.
- 71.
Aitamurto and Landemore (2015), p. 6.
- 72.
Aitamurto and Landemore (2016), p. 191.
- 73.
Oxford Dictionary of English (n.d.-b).
- 74.
Aitamurto and Landemore (2016), p. 186.
- 75.
- 76.
Sen (2010), p. 128.
- 77.
Aitamurto et al. (2013).
- 78.
Aitamurto et al. (2013).
- 79.
Aitamurto and Landemore (2016), p. 178.
- 80.
Bautista (2015), p. 2.
- 81.
Aitamurto et al. (2013).
- 82.
Unless one counts the support thresholds for discussion in the public assembly for initiatives and petitions as described under Sect. 2.2 above.
- 83.
Aitamurto et al. (2013).
- 84.
Aitamurto (2016), p. 2787.
- 85.
Aitamurto (2016), p. 2780.
- 86.
Aitamurto and Landemore (2015), p. 10.
- 87.
Singel (2008).
- 88.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy, accessed 29 August 2021.
- 89.
Heaton (2014).
- 90.
Aitamurto (2016), p. 2784.
- 91.
Bautista (2015), p. 2.
- 92.
Bautista (2015), p. 5.
- 93.
Aitamurto et al. (2013).
- 94.
The Finish marriage equality bill, which gathered more than 100,000 supporters in just one day is a good example for this.
References
Aitamurto, T. (2012). Crowdsourcing for democracy: A new era in policy-making. Publications of the Committee for the Future, Parliament of Finland 1/2012. Helsinki, Finland, Available at SSRN. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2716771
Aitamurto, T. (2016, January). Collective intelligence in law reforms: When the logic of the crowds and the logic of policymaking collide. 2780–2789. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.349
Aitamurto, T., & Landemore, H. (2015). Five design principles for crowdsourced policymaking: Assessing the case of crowdsourced off-road traffic law in Finland. Journal of Social Media for Organizations, 2(1), 1–20.
Aitamurto, T., & Landemore, H. (2016). Crowdsourced deliberation: The case of the law on off-road traffic in Finland. Policy & Internet, 8(2), 174–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.115
Aitamurto, T., Landemore, H., Lee, D., & Goel, A. (2013, October 30). Seven lessons from the crowdsourced law reform in Finland. The Governance Lab @ NYU. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from http://thegovlab.org/seven-lessons-from-the-crowdsourced-law-reform-in-finland/
Aitamurto, T., Landemore, H., Lee, D., & Goel, A. (2014). Crowdsourced off-road traffic law experiment in Finland: Report about idea crowdsourcing and evaluation. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291074594_Crowdsourced_Off-Road_Traffic_Law_Experiment_In_Finland_Report_about_idea_crowdsourcing_and_evaluation
Bautista, M. M. (2015). Crowdsourcing and local law making: Closer to the people? Retrieved April 21, 2016, from http://sffwlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Crowdsourcing-and-Local-Law-Making_Marilyn-Marchello-Bautista.pdf (not available as of 29 August 2021).
Berg, J. E., Nelson, F. D., & Rietz, T. A. (2008). Prediction market accuracy in the long run (Working Draft January 2008, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0c15/429ff05a1d5376cf262cccdfd1575dba756f.pdf, accessed 29 August 2021). (Final Version Published in:) International Journal of Forecasting, 24(2), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2008.03.007
Campoy, A. (2016, April 21). Mexico City is crowdsourcing its new constitution using Change.org in a democracy experiment. Quartz. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from https://qz.com/662159/mexico-city-is-crowdsourcing-its-new-constitution-using-change-org-in-a-democracy-experiment/
Dawson, R. (2013, June 5). How Finland’s open ministry is crowdsourcing legislation. Retrieved April 21, 2016, from http://www.resultsfromcrowds.com/insights/how-finlands-open-ministry-is-crowdsourcing-legislation/ (not available as of 29 August 2021, accessible via the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20170927142956/http://www.resultsfromcrowds.com/insights/how-finlands-open-ministry-is-crowdsourcing-legislation/, accessed 29 August 2021).
Dittrich, B. (2017, February 21). Finland to allow same-sex marriage. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/21/finland-allow-same-sex-marriage
Eördögh, F. (2012, November 5). In Crazy Open-Source Project, Finnish citizens propose laws for parliament to consider. Slate. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/11/05/open_ministry_finland_s_open_source_project_to_let_citizens_propose_laws.html
Finley, K. (2013, October 21). Out in the Open: Hackers bring lawmaking into the 21st century. WIRED. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from https://www.wired.com/2013/10/madison-project/
Gylfason, T. (2013, June 19). Democracy on ice: A post-mortem of the Icelandic constitution. openDemocracy. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from http://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/thorvaldur-gylfason/democracy-on-ice-post-mortem-of-icelandic-constitution
Heaton, B. (2014, July 2). Is crowdsourcing the future for legislation? Retrieved August 29, 2021, from http://www.govtech.com/internet/Experts-Predict-More-Legislation-Will-Be-Crowdsourced.html
Howe, J. (2006, June 1). The rise of crowdsourcing. WIRED. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from http://www.wired.com/2006/06/crowds/
Howe, J. (n.d.). Crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing website: http://www.crowdsourcing.com/cs/. Accessed 19 April 2016 (not available as of 29 August 2021, accessible via the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20180918122138/http://www.crowdsourcing.com/cs/, accessed 29 August 2021).
Landemore, H. (2013). Democratic reason: Politics, collective intelligence, and the rule of the many. Princeton University Press.
Landemore, H. (2014, July 23). The Icelandic experience challenges the view that constitutional process must be exclusionary and secretive. Democratic Audit UK. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=6747
Landemore, H. (2015). Inclusive constitution-making: The Icelandic experiment. Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(2), 166–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12032
Oxford Dictionary of English. (n.d.-a). crowdsourcing | Definition of crowdsourcing in English by Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford Dictionaries | English. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/crowdsourcing
Oxford Dictionary of English. (n.d.-b). deliberation | Definition of deliberation in English by Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford Dictionaries | English. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/deliberation
Petitioners take gay marriage bill to Parliament. (2013, March 20). Yle Uutiset. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from http://yle.fi/uutiset/petitioners_take_gay_marriage_bill_to_parliament/6544701
Rushkoff, D. (2003). Open source democracy: How online communication is changing offline politics. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from http://www.demos.co.uk/files/OpenSourceDemocracy.pdf
Sen, A. (2010). The idea of justice. Penguin.
Shirky, C. (2012). How the Internet will (one day) transform government. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_one_day_transform_government
Siddique, H. (2011, June 9). Mob rule: Iceland crowdsources its next constitution. The Guardian. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/09/iceland-crowdsourcing-constitution-facebook
Singel, R. (2008, September 10). Wikipedia Sleuths Win Journalism Award for Wired.com. Retrieved WIRED. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from https://www.wired.com/2008/09/wikipedia-sleut/
Soepper, P. (2018). Crowdsourcing and crowdfunding: Democratizing societies in the 21st century. 法制理論 = Hosei Riron; The Journal of Law and Politics, 50(2), 154–186.
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds (First Anchor Books Edition). Anchor Books.
The Constitutional Council – General Information. (n.d.). Retrieved August 29, 2021, from http://stjornlagarad.is/english/
The Open Gov Foundation. (2019, February 4). Say Goodbye to Madison. The OpenGov Foundation. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from https://medium.com/@OpenGovFdn/say-goodbye-to-madison-84629ce013a0
Warner, C. (2014, April 9). North and South Carolina counties use crowdsourcing to plan region. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from http://www.govtech.com/internet/North-and-South-Carolina-Counties-Use-Crowdsourcing-to-Plan-Regions-Future.html?utm_source=related&utm_medium=direct&utm_campaign=North-and-South-Carolina-Counties-Use-Crowdsourcing-to-Plan-Regions-Future
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Soepper, P. (2022). Crowdsourcing as a Means for Participatory Legislation. In: Borges, G., Sorge, C. (eds) Law and Technology in a Global Digital Society. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90513-2_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90513-2_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-90512-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-90513-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)