Propose new functionalities for Decidim software
#DecidimRoadmap Designing Decidim together
Rejected
Most large institutions require using paper ballots for participatory budgeting. We need a smart way to account for them.
Best is to account for them in a seperate way, probably via the admin interface or using a csv import.
Best is to account for them in a seperate way, probably via the admin interface or using a csv import.
This proposal has been rejected because:
Decidim's premise is to hybridize face-to-face and digital participation to ensure that it is as inclusive as possible. However, the use of paper combined with the digital layer presents a number of security and process integrity issues. Our recommendation is that in-person voting be done with digital supports.
This proposal is not accepted in the main project, although it can be developed as a module.
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
Conversation with Pierre Mesure
I'm surprised this one doesn't get more support, almost all cities have physical ballots for their PB and there's sometimes (often) more paper votes than digital ones. It's actually one of the few reasons why we chose Consul over Decidim for a city which we knew would get mostly paper votes.
When this feature is implemented, it should allow for bulk import (and I agree that a CSV import would be simplest) but also for a manual import allowing smaller cities to manually import ballots one by one (with a project picker, maybe?)
Since checking and recounting the ballots is usually better done physically, the software shouldn't try to overcomplicate the import process by adding redundant checks.
Well yes, it's a shame. Perhaps one explanation is that in Catalonia we do not have large town halls and the few that exist do not use participatory budgeting (Barcelona for example). If you look, the really good thing about Consul is PB. Decidim is a whole political network that is serving multiple processes / assemblies / initiatives / conferences ... (you can look at the comparison but I think it is winning Decidim ..: https://decidim.org/blog/en/2019-01 -14-consul-comparison). It's a shame that Consul is chosen and not Decidim because we lack a functionality and do not fight to include it :( OSP partners have improvements made and when they have any time they include them :) Let's see if we can gradually improve the functionality among all: D
I agree, we’re also using Decidim when it fits best, it’s just too hard to tell a small city district that the platform they’ll be using can’t import their votes when 80% vote on paper, especially when they don’t benefit from the advantages of Decidim such as modularity, multitenant.
Let’s hope that this gets developed. I could have a try but I would honestly not trust myself regarding the design of the feature.
Loading comments ...