E-democracy

E-democracy (a mix of the words electronic and democracy), also known as digital democracy or Internet democracy, uses information and communication technology (ICT) in political and governance processes. While offering new tools for transparency and participation, e-democracy also faces growing challenges such as misinformation, bias in algorithms, and the concentration of power in private platforms.[1][2][3][4] The term is commonly attributed to digital activist Steven Clift.[5][6][7] E-democracy closely follows e-government and applies ICT to help enchance the quality of voting services, public opinion polling and provide access to the broader populace.[8]

Structure

E-democracy uses digital media to such as television, radio, the Internet, cell phones, and electronic polling systems to involve more people in political discourse.[9][10][11]

History

The earliest use of e-democracy dates back to the development of Minnesota E-Democracy Project in July 1994 by then student Steven Clift of Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. The project at first primarily was used to access information from the candidates and info about the candidates running for office in the upcoming state and national election later in the year. Using help by Twin Cities Freenet and the Minnesota Regional Network, the website was opened in August of the same year to the general public. Early use of listserv and Hypermail was also integrated in the website.[12]: 2 

In Italy, teledemocracy was introduced in Bologna in 1995 with the introduction of the project Iperbole (Hyperbole). The project was aimed at the population of the city (half a million) that gave free Internet access for a small fee. Access to online forums, discussion groups, and municipal services were provided by Cineca and co-funded by the EU. In 1999, the Ministry of University and Research and Cineca carried out the first virtual European-wide election to elect around 30,000 professors and researchers using smart electronic cards.[13]

In the European Parliament, OVIDE (Organisation du Videotex du Député Européen) started as a concept in the mid 1980s, especially after the 1979 European Parliament election. The service was branched at communication and information. Among the features for both include electronic mail invitations, allowing mailing lists, request for parliamentary allowances in the form of electronic forms, legislative procedure fact sheets, Eurostat statistics and gateways to other EU databases. The multilingual service was also first European online services to present information in both Videotex and ASCII modes.[14]

Concept and approach

The concept involves endorsing individuals or policies committed to leveraging internet technologies to amplify public engagement without modifying or substituting existing constitutions. The approach includes data collection, analysis of advantages and disadvantages, evaluation of interests, and facilitating discussions around potential outcomes.[15]

With high internet penetration in many regions, politics have increasingly relied on the internet as a primary source of information for numerous people. This digital shift has been supported by the rise in online advertising among political candidates and groups actively trying to sway public opinion or directly influence legislators.[16]

This trend is especially noticeable among younger voters, who often regard the internet as their primary source of information due to its convenience and ability to streamline their information-gathering process. The user-friendly nature of search engines like Google and social networks encourages increased citizen engagement in political research and discourse. Social networks, for instance, offer platforms where individuals can voice their opinions on governmental issues without fear of judgement.[17]

The Internet facilitates citizens in accessing and disseminating information about politicians while simultaneously providing politicians with insights from a broader citizen base. This collaborative approach to decision-making and problem-solving empowers citizens. It accelerates decision-making processes by politicians, thereby fostering a more efficient society. Gathering citizen feedback and perspectives is essential to a politician's role. The Internet functions as a conduit for effective engagement with a larger audience. Consequently, this enhanced communication may influence how the American government interacts with the public.[18]

The 2016 U.S. presidential election is an example of social media integration in political campaigns, where both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton actively utilized Twitter as a communication tool. These platforms allow candidates to shape public perceptions while also humanizing their personas, suggesting that political figures are as approachable and relatable as ordinary individuals. Through resources such as Google, the Internet enables every citizen to readily research political topics. Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram encourage political engagement, allowing users to share their political views and connect with like-minded individuals.

It feels like the Labour frontbench is further away from our members than at any point in our history, and the digital revolution can help bring the party closer together … I'm going to ask our NEC to see whether we can have digital branches and digital delegates to the conference. Not replacing what we do but providing an alternative platform. It's a way of organizing for a different generation of people who do their politics differently, get their news differently.

— Tom Watson[19]

As of the 2020s, e-democracy's landscape continues to evolve alongside advancements in technologies such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, and big data. These technologies promise to expand citizen participation further, enhance transparency, and boost the overall efficiency and responsiveness of democratic governance.[20]

E-democracy promotes wider access to information, and its inherent decentralization challenges censorship practices.[21]

Digital mobilization in social movements

The Arab Spring

During the 2010–11 Arab Spring, applications like Bambuser and Ustream were used by demonstrators and protesters to livestream videos, share inside information and bypass government restrictions to view the outside world. Citizen journalism played a major part in foreign media such as Associated Press to report undergoing conflicts within the area.[22]

Occupy movement

The Occupy movement significantly used radical transparency against corporations and political elites. By livestreaming and "live-tweeting" internal meetings movements, the movement also gave transparency to anyone to join the movement. In its peak, the movement managed to cover 82 countries around the world as it grew from social media such as Facebook and X.[23][24]

15-M Movement

While mostly being an assembly-based movement, the 15-M Movement (or Los Indignados) began to use the media to communicate their own narratives and drew inspiration from other movements at the time, including the Arab Spring, the Kitchenware and Wikileaks. Figures associated with the movement include Ada Colau and Pablo Iglesias, with the latter forming the Podemos party.[25][26] The media particularly helped in mobilising more people towards the movement.[23][27] In 2016, Decidim was developed as a response to this movement.[28]

Nepalese election

Sudan Gurung, founder of Hami Nepal, announced "Youths Against Corruption", a Discord channel aimed at providing communication for youths during the September 2025 protests. The channel was a response after the government imposed bans on major social media website including YouTube, Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) on early in the month on 4 September.[29][30] A Discord poll was set to elect a new interim prime minister after the resignation of K.P. Sharma Oli. Sushila Karki was then elected, before being succeeded by Balen Shah.[31][32]

Advantages

E-democracy promotes more rapid and efficient dissemination of political information, encourages public debate, and boosts participation in decision-making processes.[33] Some observers argue that the government's online publication of public information enhances its transparency, enabling more extensive public scrutiny, and consequently promoting a more equitable distribution of power within society.[34]


Participation and engagement

3D e-democracy roadmap by Hilbert[35]

E-democracy increases participation among voters by allowing public dialogue and disccusion to occur using technology such as electronic mailing lists, blogs and online forums.[36]


Therefore, e-democracy's evolution is influenced by such broad changes as increased interdependency, technological multimediation, partnership governance, and individualism.[37]

Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, WordPress, and Blogspot, are increasingly significant in democratic dialogues.[38][39] The role of social media in e-democracy is an emerging field of study, along with technological developments such as argument maps and the semantic web.[35]

Community involvement

Civic engagement encompasses three key aspects: understanding public affairs (political knowledge), trust in the political system (political trust), and involvement in governmental decision-making processes (political participation).[40] The internet enhances civic engagement by creating a new medium for interaction with government institutions.[41]

Advocates of e-democracy propose that it can facilitate more active government engagement[42] and inspire citizens to actively influence decisions that directly affect them.[43] Digital tools have and continue to be used to determine the best practices for getting citizens involved in government. Collecting data on what gets citizens involved most efficiently allows for stronger practices going forward in citizen involvement.[44]

Numerous studies indicate an increased use of the internet for obtaining political information. From 1996 to 2002, the percentage of adults claiming that the internet played a significant role in their political choices rose from around 14 to 20 percent.[45]

A survey conducted by Philip N. Howard revealed that nearly two-thirds of the adult population in the United States has interacted with online political news, information, or other content over the past four election cycles.[45]

The ease with which information can be accessed online may empower citizens to better understand government and politics. The internet has also enabled new forms of communication between citizens and elected officials. By providing access to contact information, legislation, agendas, and policies, governments can enhance transparency, thereby potentially facilitating more informed participation both online and offline.[46]

As articulated by Matt Leighninger, the internet bolsters government by enhancing individual empowerment and reinforcing group agency.[47]

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) identifies three key aspects regarding the role of ICTs in fostering civic engagement. The first aspect is timing, with most civic engagement activities occurring during the agenda-setting phase of a cycle. The second factor is adaptation, which refers to how ICTs evolve to facilitate increased civic participation. The final aspect is integration, representing how emerging ICTs blend new and traditional methods to maximize civic engagement.[48]

ICT fosters the possibility of a government that is both more democratic and better informed by facilitating open online collaborations between professionals and the public. The responsibility of collecting information and making decisions is shared between those possessing technological expertise and the traditionally recognized decision-makers. This broadened public involvement in the exchange of ideas and policies results in more democratic decision-making. Furthermore, ICT enhances the notion of pluralism within a democracy, introducing fresh issues and viewpoints.[49]

Youth involvement

In previous years, individuals belonging to Generation X and Generation Y, typically encompassing those aged 35 and below as of the mid-2000s, were noted for their relative disengagement from political activities.[50] The implementation of electronic democracy has been proposed as a potential solution to foster increased voter turnout, democratic participation, and political literacy among these younger demographics.[51][52]

Deliberative democracy

The Internet holds a pivotal role in deliberative democracy.[53]

A notable development in the application of e-democracy in the deliberative process is the California Report Card. This tool was created by the Data and Democracy Initiative of the Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society at the University of California, Berkeley, in collaboration with Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom.[54]

The Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN Act), presented as an alternative to SOPA and PIPA, garners the support of major companies like Google and Facebook. Its website, Keep The Web Open,[55] not only provides full access to the bill but also incorporates public input—over 150 modifications have been made through user contributions.[56][57]

The peer-to-patent project allows public participation in the patent review process by providing research and 'prior art' publications for patent examiners to assess the novelty of an invention. In this process, the community nominates ten pieces of prior art to be reviewed by the patent examiner. This not only enables direct communication between the public and the patent examiner but also creates a structured environment that prompts participants to provide relevant information to aid in decision-making. By allowing experts and the general public to collaborate in finding solutions, the project aims to enhance the efficacy of the decision-making process. It offers a platform for citizens to participate and express their ideas beyond merely checking boxes that limit their opinions to predefined options.[58]

Disadvantages

Internet accessibility

The progression of e-democracy is impeded by the digital divide, which separates those actively engaged in electronic communities from those who do not participate. Proponents of e-democracy often recommend governmental actions to bridge this digital gap.[59] The divergence in e-governance and e-democracy between the developed and the developing world is largely due to the digital divide.[60] Practical concerns include the digital divide that separates those with access from those without, and the opportunity cost associated with investments in e-democracy innovations. There also exists a degree of skepticism regarding the potential impact of online participation.[61]

Security and privacy

Despite these advancements, recent research has indicated, through a SWOT analysis, that the risks of an e-government are related to data loss, privacy and security, and user adoption.[62]

Opposition

Information and communications technologies can be utilized for both democratic and anti-democratic purposes. For instance, digital technology can be used to promote both coercive control and active participation.[63]

Critiques associated with direct democracy are also considered applicable to e-democracy. This includes the potential for direct governance to cause the polarization of opinions, populism, and demagoguery.[63]

Cybersecurity

The current inability to protect internet traffic from interference and manipulation has significantly limited the potential of e-democracy for decision-making. As a result, most experts express opposition to the use of the internet for widespread voting.[64][65][66][67][68]

Internet censorship

In countries with severe government censorship, the full potential of e-democracy might not be realized. Internet clampdowns often occur during extensive political protests. For instance, the series of internet blackouts in the Middle East in 2011, termed as the "Arab Net Crackdown", provides a significant example. Governments in Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, Iran, and Yemen have all implemented total internet censorship in response to the numerous pro-democracy demonstrations within their respective nations.[69] These lockdowns were primarily instituted to prevent the dissemination of cell phone videos that featured images of government violence against protesters.[70]

Social media manipulation

Joshua A. Tucker and his colleagues critique e-democracy, pointing out that the adaptability and openness of social media may allow political entities to manipulate it for their own ends.[71] They suggest that authorities could use social media to spread authoritarian practices in several ways. Firstly, by intimidating opponents, monitoring private conversations, and even jailing those who voice undesirable opinions. Secondly, by flooding online spaces with pro-regime messages, thereby diverting and occupying these platforms. Thirdly, by disrupting signal access to hinder the flow of information. Lastly, by banning globalized platforms and websites.[71]

Populism concerns

A study that interviewed elected officials in Austria's parliament revealed a broad and strong opposition to e-democracy. These officials held the view that citizens, generally uninformed, should limit their political engagement to voting. The task of sharing opinions and ideas, they contended, belonged solely to elected representatives.[72][16]

Stop Online Piracy Act

The introduction of H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), in the United States House of Representatives, was perceived by many internet users as an attack on internet democracy.[73][74] A contributor to the Huffington Post argued that defeating SOPA was crucial for the preservation of democracy and freedom of speech.[73]

Significantly, SOPA was indefinitely postponed following widespread protests, which included a site blackout by popular websites like Wikipedia on 18 January 2012.[75]

A comparable event occurred in India towards the end of 2011, when the country's Communication and IT Minister Kapil Sibal suggested pre-screening content for offensive material before its publication on the internet, with no clear mechanism for appeal.[38] Subsequent reports, however, quote Sibal as stating that there would be no restrictions on internet use.[76]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Noveck, Beth Simone (2017). "Five hacks for digital democracy". Nature. 544 (7650): 287–289. Bibcode:2017Natur.544..287N. doi:10.1038/544287a. PMID 28426018.
  2. ↑ Ann Macintosh (2004). "Characterizing E-Participation in Policy-Making" (PDF). 2004 International Conference on System Sciences. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 August 2019. Retrieved 15 December 2014.
  3. ↑ Lindner, Ralf; Aichholzer, Georg (2020). "E-Democracy: Conceptual Foundations and Recent Trends". European E-Democracy in Practice. Cham: Springer. pp. 11–45. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-27184-8_2. ISBN 978-3-030-27184-8.
  4. ↑ Congge, Umar; Guillamón, María-Dolores; Nurmandi, Achmad; Sihidi, Iradhad Taqwa (2023). "Digital democracy: A systematic literature review". Frontiers in Political Science. 5 972802. doi:10.3389/fpos.2023.972802.
  5. ↑ Azyan, Liz (3 August 2009). "Liz talks to Steven Clift from e-democracy.org at the Personal Democracy Forum Conference 09". Liz Azyan. Archived from the original on 25 October 2020. Retrieved 20 November 2020.
  6. ↑ "Challenge and promise of e-democracy". Griffith Review. Archived from the original on 25 January 2021. Retrieved 21 November 2020.
  7. ↑ "politics". Archived from the original on 17 May 2021. Retrieved 21 November 2020.
  8. ↑ Hosein Jafarkarimi; Alex Sim; Robab Saadatdoost; Jee Mei Hee (January 2014). "The Impact of ICT on Reinforcing Citizens' Role in Government Decision Making" (PDF). International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering. Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 April 2016. Retrieved 15 December 2014.
  9. ↑ "E-Democracy". Retrieved 18 August 2026.
  10. ↑ "Public Participation Guide: Electronic Democracy". Retrieved 18 August 2026.
  11. ↑ "E-democracy". Retrieved 18 August 2026.
  12. ↑ Aikens, G. Scott (1998). "A personal history of Minnesota electronic democracy, 1994". Journal of Government Information. 25 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1016/S1352-0237(97)00082-8. Retrieved 18 August 2026.
  13. ↑ Hubert-Rodier, Jacques (31 March 1999). "Bologne à l'heure de la téléréactivité et de la transparence administrative" (in French).
  14. ↑ Davies, G. W. P.; Jegu, P. (1995). "OVIDE and teledemocracy". Journal of Information Science. 21 (5): 383–389. doi:10.1177/016555159502100505. Retrieved 19 August 2026.
  15. ↑ Prins, Corien; Mônica Rosina; Colette Cuijpers; Peter Lindseth (2017). Digital Democracy in a Globalized World. doi:10.4337/9781785363962. ISBN 978-1-78536-396-2.
  16. 1 2 Chung-pin Lee; Kaiju Chang; Frances Stokes Berry (9 May 2011). "Testing the Development and Diffusion of E-Government and E-Democracy: A Global Perspective". Public Administration Review. 71 (3): 444–454. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02228.x.
  17. ↑ Behçet Oral (2008). "The evaluation of the student teachers' attitudes toward the Internet and democracy". Computers & Education. 50 (1): 437–445. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.07.006.
  18. ↑ Matt Leighninger (2 May 2012). "Citizenship And Governance in a Wild, Wired World: How Should Citizens And Public Managers Use Online Tools To Improve Democracy?". National Civic Review. 100 (2): 20–29. doi:10.1002/ncr.20056.
  19. ↑ Waugh, Paul (30 July 2015). "Tom Watson Interview: On Jeremy Corbyn, Tony Blair, Leveson, Digital Democracy; And How He Sleeps at Night". HuffPost. Archived from the original on 23 December 2015. Retrieved 10 February 2016.
  20. ↑ Loubser, Minka (2020). "E-democracy and Citizen Engagement: The Deliberative Ecosystem and the Role of the Public Sphere in Developing Democracies". Information Polity. 25 (1): 79–94.
  21. ↑ Macnamara, J (2012). The 21st Century Media (R)evolution: Emergent Communication Practices. Peter Lang. ISBN 978-1-4331-0936-2.
  22. ↑ Bengtsson, Rebecca (12 September 2013). "Action! Livestreaming as means of civic engagement: A case study of citizen journalism in Egypt and Syria". Glocal Times (19): 1–13. Retrieved 21 August 2026.
  23. 1 2 "Occupy movement". Retrieved 21 August 2026.
  24. ↑ Kavada, Anastasia; Treré, Emiliano (12 July 2019). "Live democracy and its tensions: making sense of livestreaming in the 15M and Occupy". Information, Communication & Society. 23 (12): 1787–1804. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2019.1637448. Retrieved 21 August 2026.
  25. ↑ Flesher Fominaya, Cristina (20 December 2022). "Beyond the Square: The Legacy of the 15-M Movement". Green European Journal. Retrieved 23 August 2026.
  26. ↑ Rubio-Pueyo, Vicente (12 May 2021). "Laboratory of Conversations: The 15M Movement". Retrieved 23 August 2026.
  27. ↑ Jiménez-Sánchez, Manuel; García-Espín, Patricia (13 April 2022). "The mobilising memory of the 15-M movement: recollections and sediments in Spanish protest culture". Social Movement Studies. 22 (3): 402–420. doi:10.1080/14742837.2022.2061941. Retrieved 23 August 2026.
  28. ↑ Eli Borges Junior; Bruno Madureira Ferreira (November 2022). "Informative architectures and citizen participation: a comparative study between the digital platforms". Liinc em Revista. 18 e6058. doi:10.18617/liinc.v18i2.6058. ISSN 1808-3536. Wikidata Q128009986. Archived from the original on 22 July 2024.
  29. ↑ "Nepal bans Facebook, X, Youtube, 23 other social media platforms". The Hindu. Retrieved 26 August 2026.
  30. ↑ "Nepal orders ban on major social media platforms". cpj.org. 4 September 2025. Retrieved 26 August 2026.
  31. ↑ "'More egalitarian': How Nepal's Gen Z used gaming app Discord to pick PM". Al Jazeera.
  32. ↑ Raj Mulmi, Amish (24 September 2025). "From Streets to Discord: How Nepal's Gen Z Toppled a Government". carnegieendowment.org. Retrieved 26 August 2026.
  33. ↑ van Dijk, Jan A.G.M.; Hacker, Kenneth L. (30 May 2018). Van Dijk, Jan A.G.M; Hacker, Kenneth L (eds.). Internet and Democracy in the Network Society. doi:10.4324/9781351110716. ISBN 978-1-351-11071-6. S2CID 158994705.
  34. ↑ "How the internet is transforming democracy". The Independent. 12 December 2012. Archived from the original on 8 September 2019. Retrieved 15 April 2020.
  35. 1 2 Martin Hilbert (April 2009). "The Maturing Concept of E-Democracy: From E-Voting and Online Consultations to Democratic Value Out of Jumbled Online Chatter". Journal of Information Technology and Politics. 6 (2): 87–110. doi:10.1080/19331680802715242. S2CID 15790311. Free access to the article can be found here
  36. ↑ Spirakis, Grigorios; Spiraki, Christina; Nikolopoulos, Konstantinos (January 2010). "The impact of electronic government on democracy: e-democracy through e-participation". Electronic Government an International Journal. 7 (1): 75. doi:10.1504/EG.2010.029892. Retrieved 23 August 2026.
  37. ↑ Anttiroiko, Ari-Veikko (2003). "Building Strong E-Democracy—The Role of Technology in Developing Democracy for the Information Age". Communications of the ACM. 46 (9): 121–128. doi:10.1145/903893.903926. S2CID 13930078.
  38. 1 2 Madhavan, N. (25 December 2011). "Is Internet Democracy under Threat in India?". Hindustan Times. Archived from the original on 15 April 2012. Retrieved 15 December 2014.
  39. ↑ Is Facebook keeping you in a political bubble? https://www.science.org/content/article/facebook-keeping-you-political-bubble Archived 1 September 2022 at the Wayback Machine
  40. ↑ Norris, Pippa (2001). Digital divide: civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-00223-3.
  41. ↑ Bakardjieva, Maria (March 2009). "Subactivism: lifeworld and politics in the age of the internet". The Information Society. 25 (2): 91–104. doi:10.1080/01972240802701627. S2CID 17972877.
  42. ↑ Caldow, Janet (2003). "E-democracy: putting down global roots" (PDF). www-01.ibm.com/industries/government/ieg. IBM Institute for Electronic Government. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 August 2011. Retrieved 7 May 2011.
  43. ↑ Whittaker, Jason (2004), "Cyberspace and the public sphere", in Whittaker, Jason (ed.), The cyberspace handbook, London New York: Routledge, pp. 257–275, ISBN 978-0-415-16836-6.
  44. ↑ Hennen, Leonhard; van Keulen, Ira; Korthagen, Iris; Aichholzer, Georg; Lindner, Ralf; Nielsen, Rasmus Øjvind, eds. (2020). European E-Democracy in Practice. Studies in Digital Politics and Governance. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-27184-8. ISBN 978-3-030-27183-1.
  45. 1 2 Howard, Philip N. (January 2005). "Deep democracy, thin citizenship: the impact of digital media in political campaign strategy". Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 597 (1): 153–170. doi:10.1177/0002716204270139. S2CID 154463095.
  46. ↑ ENGAGE: creating e-government that supports commerce, collaboration, community and Commonwealth (PDF). Folsom, California: Center for Digital Government. 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 March 2010.
  47. ↑ Leighninger, Matt (Summer 2011). "Citizenship and governance in a wild, wired world: how should citizens and public managers use online tools to improve democracy?". National Civic Review. 100 (2): 20–29. doi:10.1002/ncr.20056.
  48. ↑ OECD (2003). Promise and Problems of E-Democracy (PDF). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. ISBN 978-92-64-01948-5. Archived (PDF) from the original on 30 January 2012. Retrieved 7 February 2012. ICTs can enable greater citizen engagement in policy-making...
  49. ↑ Clarke, Amanda (2010). Social media: 4. Political uses and implications for representative democracy (PDF). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Reference and Strategic Analysis Division, Parliamentary Information and Research Service. OCLC 927202545. 2010-10-E. Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 April 2013. Retrieved 7 February 2012.
  50. ↑ Owen, D. (2006). The Internet and youth civic engagement in the United States. In S. Oates, D. Owen & R. K. Gibson (Eds.), The Internet and politics: Citizens, voters and activists. London: Routledge.
  51. ↑ Canadian Parties in Transition, 3rd Edition. Gagnon and Tanguay (eds). Chapter 20 – Essay by Milner
  52. ↑ Andrew, Alex M. (2008). "Cybernetics and E-Democracy". Kybernetes. 37 (7): 1066–1068. doi:10.1108/03684920810884414. Retrieved 5 February 2012.
  53. ↑ Gimmler, A (2001). "Deliberative democracy, the public sphere, and the internet". Philosophy & Social Criticism. 27 (4): 21–39. doi:10.1177/019145370102700402. S2CID 145524757. Archived from the original on 15 December 2011. Retrieved 1 May 2012.
  54. ↑ "CITRIS – Ken Goldberg appointed Faculty Director of the CITRIS Data and Democracy Initiative". Archived from the original on 9 June 2012. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
  55. ↑ "Keeping the internet open & delivering open government technology". keepthewebopen.com. Archived from the original on 17 September 2012. Retrieved 17 April 2015.
  56. ↑ Sutter, John D. (18 January 2012). "The OPEN Act as an experiment in digital democracy – What's Next – CNN.com Blogs". CNN Blogs. Archived from the original on 11 September 2013. Retrieved 9 September 2013.
  57. ↑ Sutter, John D (18 January 2012). "The OPEN Act as an experiment in digital democracy". CNN. Archived from the original on 22 January 2012. Retrieved 6 February 2012.
  58. ↑ Beth Simone Noveck (2008). "Wiki-Government". Democracy Journal. Archived from the original on 29 December 2010. Retrieved 15 December 2014.
  59. ↑ Helbig, Natalie; Ramon J. Gil-Garcia (3 December 2008). "Understand the complexity of electronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature" (PDF). Government Information Quarterly. pp. 89–97 [95]. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 November 2013. Retrieved 2 May 2012.
  60. ↑ "The Impact of The Global Digital Divide on The World". Korea IT Times. 9 August 2012. Archived from the original on 14 February 2017. Retrieved 13 February 2017.
  61. ↑ Komito, L. (2007). "Community and inclusion: The impact of new communications technologies". Irish Journal of Sociology. 16 (2): 77–96. doi:10.1177/079160350701600205. hdl:10197/10192. S2CID 166461866.
  62. ↑ Sundberg, Leif (1 October 2019). "Electronic government: Towards e-democracy or democracy at risk?". Safety Science. 118: 22–32. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2019.04.030. ISSN 0925-7535.
  63. 1 2 "Digital Processes and Democratic Theory". MartinHilbert.net. Archived from the original on 20 February 2018. Retrieved 17 April 2015.
  64. ↑ Parks, Miles (7 November 2019). "In 2020, Some Americans Will Vote On Their Phones. Is That The Future?". NPR.
  65. ↑ Geller, Eric (8 June 2020). "Some states have embraced online voting. It's a huge risk". Politico. Retrieved 9 May 2023.
  66. ↑ "The Dangers of Internet Voting". The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on 4 March 2017. Retrieved 9 May 2023.
  67. ↑ Mestel, Spenser (4 November 2022). "An Uber Millionaire Wants You to Vote on the Internet — Despite the Inherent Vulnerabilities". The Intercept. Retrieved 9 May 2023.
  68. ↑ Zetter, Kim (8 May 2020). "US government plans to urge states to resist 'high-risk' internet voting". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 9 May 2023.
  69. ↑ "Corporations and the Arab Net Crackdown". Foreign Policy in Focus. 25 March 2011. Archived from the original on 22 September 2012. Retrieved 17 April 2015.
  70. ↑ "SaveTheInternet.com – Egypt's Internet Crackdown". freepress.net. Archived from the original on 12 April 2015. Retrieved 17 April 2015.
  71. 1 2 Tucker, Joshua A.; Theocharis, Yannis; Roberts, Margaret E.; Barberá, Pablo (2017). "From Liberation to Turmoil: Social Media And Democracy". Journal of Democracy. 28 (4): 46–59. doi:10.1353/jod.2017.0064. ISSN 1086-3214. S2CID 149417622. Archived from the original on 24 October 2020. Retrieved 24 October 2020.
  72. ↑ Mahrer, Harold; Krimmer (January 2005). "Towards the enhancement of e-democracy: identifying the notion of the 'middleman paradox'". Information Systems Journal. 15 (1): 27–42. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00184.x. S2CID 16020005.
  73. 1 2 Brian Fox (30 January 2012). "Protecting Internet Democracy". HuffPost. Archived from the original on 27 October 2014. Retrieved 15 December 2014.
  74. ↑ Smith, Congressman Lamar. "H.R. 3261." Ed. Representatives, House of. Washington, DC: 112th Congress, 1st Session, 2011. Print.
  75. ↑ Julianna Pepitone (24 September 2012). "SOPA and PIPA postponed indefinitely after protests". CNN Money. Archived from the original on 27 December 2014. Retrieved 15 December 2014.
  76. ↑ "IT News Online > – Kapil Sibal: Internet an indispensable tool for governance in a free democracy". itnewsonline.com. 24 September 2012. Archived from the original on 7 November 2017. Retrieved 17 April 2015.
This page is issued from Wikipedia. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.