Method

Our platform is designed to be responsive to the needs of a broad range governments and organizations.

Our system currently has two distinct functionalities to best serve your vision of engagement.

Non-binding Decisions

This platform allows an organization using the tool to post issues, collect feedback from their constituents through voting and comments, and use this information accordingly.

Comments on each side of the argument will be open to being rated by those who voted the same way, with the most relevant comments displaying closest to the top. This encourages relevant, civil conversations.

It is simply a suggestion box allowing for consolidated conversation on the most pressing issues within your organization.

Binding Decisions Determined by Engagement

This is the original method which Yellowknife city councillor Rommel Silverio will use once public beta testing is complete. We like to call it the “Yellowknife Method” as a sign of pride for our roots in Canada’s North.

In addition to voting and commenting as described in the non-binding platform, issues with a high degree of engagement will act as a binding plebiscite within your organization.

On topics where your constituents do not engage (a fair amount of day-to-day business), uncast votes remain with the candidate. When this happens, the candidates will decide the vote. This is basically what happens during regular decision-making, but with the added benefit of IserveU's conversation helping inform the candidate's decision.

For example, in a city, there may be a significant amount of passion for a historic building. Perhaps there is an opportunity to put in a new condo development if the building is demolished.

This would be an issue likely to elicit a lot of attention.  

On a similar issue, voter participation will be high and may decide the outcome. Whether or the public input is binding depends on how many registered voters chose to take part, how they voted (yes or no), and how many chose not to cast their ballots. At the end of the voting period, the councillor is able to vote with the weight of all uncast votes.

For example, in a voting population of 10,000, if 6,500 people vote and the results are 40% yes and 60% no (a difference of 20%), then the councillor would have the weight of 3,500 uncast votes (35% of the total votes available), which could determine the outcome whichever way the councillor decides is best; however, if the results are 30% yes and 70% no (a difference of 40%), the uncast votes (35%) are unable to override the public decision, making the public’s input binding.

However, fewer people care about road paving on a particular street, meaning fewer people would engage and more uncast votes would be provided to be used at the organization or representative’s discretion.

Ongoing development

Our team works under a Rapid Application Development model, and we’re always looking for new ways to tackle the challenges of decision-making and engagement.

We will be consistently working towards new and exciting approaches to capturing the advantages of technology for more inclusive, participatory decision-making.