Usage possibilities
A demonstration of the wide spectrum of possibilities for applying the system in which our developed technology is implemented. These possibilities are enabled by its ease of use, inherent accessibility, scalability, and adaptability—its readiness to be configured for a wide variety of analytical purposes.
For Different Types of Voting
Extended Capabilities
The system is designed so that a voter expresses their position in a message, the content of which can be anything. That is, it can contain one or several questions, allow the voter to choose multiple answers, rank priorities, or even assign quantitative scores. The processing of the results depends on the voting method chosen by the initiators and the questions posed accordingly.
Majority Methods
A class of methods where the winner is determined by the number of votes for a single candidate or alternative. Each voter has only one vote that may be cast for only one candidate or alternative. The outcome of the election is the distribution of votes among the candidates or alternatives.
The simplest method in this class is where the winner is the option that receives the largest number of votes (a plurality or relative majority). In other methods the winner is the option that receives more than half of all votes (an absolute majority) or more votes than a predetermined threshold (a supermajority).
Ranking Methods
Ranking methods differ in how the winner is determined. In all methods, the voter receives a set of candidates or alternatives that they must rank in order of preference, i.e., assign each a weight in the form of a natural number in descending order. The weight of the last one is 1.
- In the first method of determining the winner, the winner is considered to be one or several candidates, or one or several alternatives, that have accumulated the highest total weight.
- In the second method of determining the winner, the winner is considered to be only one candidate or one alternative that has received more than half of the first-place rankings. If there is none, the candidate or alternative with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their weight is redistributed among the remaining ones. The process is completed when one of the candidates or one of the alternatives gains more than half of the total weight.
Separately, it is worth noting the possibility of supplementing the ranking by assigning each candidate or alternative an arbitrary weight within certain limits.
For Polls and Referendums
Polls
The system is designed so that any initiative group or even a single initiator can propose that those they select approve or condemn, support or reject any proposal they put forward, or choose one or another suggested answer to any question they pose. This requires no complex preparation and incurs no costs, except for those associated with preparing the questions and analyzing the responses. Furthermore, the system can encompass any number of citizens and provide a complete social picture of their preferences, as it allows a voter to add their non-personalized social profile to the voting message.
This feature of our proposed system allows it to be used for conducting referendums with legal consequences, for resolving any issues significant to society, in any territory or subdivision. And, crucially, as frequently as desired.
Focus Groups
The system is convenient for studying public opinion through focus groups. To do this, it is sufficient to include the opinions and judgments expressed by the focus group participants among the alternatives to be evaluated (approved or condemned). Such opinions can be presented by them anonymously and then included in the ballots of an anonymous survey by the researchers.
For Anonymous Deliberation
The Emergence of Societal Self-Awareness
Tools analogous to those intended for conducting focus groups can be used on the platform for anonymous deliberation on important political issues. A platform created for this purpose will provide society not only with the opportunity to see a broad panorama of ideas circulating within it and the arguments supporting them but also to understand the degree of support for each of them. In such a balanced panorama—a panorama of ideas endowed with the weight of their public support—people will be able to see what constitutes the mainstream and what is marginal.
This vision will allow some to fearlessly join the position of the majority, even if it does not align with the authorities’ stance, others to form their own worldview and ideas, and yet others to see an incentive to fight for their views and their dissemination, using our platform for this purpose.
Human history demonstrates a persistent trend towards the spread of humanism and justice. Modern society is more inclined than any in history to transform them into a moral norm. We believe that a platform for anonymous deliberation could serve as a dominant instrument of this process in our time, a means of forming a humane and just society capable of precluding any insurmountable confrontation.
Feedback
A platform for anonymous deliberation can be an excellent tool for each people’s elected representative—a person authorized to embody the interests of their constituents—to form and refine their own advocated position. The ability of constituents to permanently assess all the statements and actions of their elected representative, separately for each issue or problem, will give the representative a clear understanding of what they should do and what position to adhere to. The constituent’s reaction to the representative’s attitude towards different issues, their expressed judgments, or positions taken on various matters will allow the representative to adjust their actions and statements.
The reflection of each candidate’s statements and behavior on our platform will allow voters to evaluate them more judiciously, comparing their positions on different issues and choosing the one closer in intentions, rather than based on charisma or likability. At the same time, the platform for anonymous deliberation will allow for fearless criticism of the authorities, demonstrating the extent to which they fulfill their commitments.