What is dotmocracy?

Dotmocracy is an established facilitation process for quickly prioritizing ideas among a large number of people. It is an easy to use participatory and equal opportunity large group decision-making process. Participants put dots (traditionally stickers) next to a variety of written ideas to show which ones they prefer. The final result is a graph-like visual representation of the group's collective preferences. It is a technique for assisting in form of consensus decision-making.

For further explanation see What is dotmocracy? page and the Step-by-Step Process.

Is this like Multi-voting and sticker-voting?

What are the different kinds of dotmocracy?

There are many variations on the dotmocracy approach. Some key points of variation include:

• The process of generating ideas, e.g. an open brainstorm VS a short list of options presented by an executive committee.
• How many dot (stickers) each participant is given to use.
• How many dots a participant can apply per an idea.
• Colours of dots and what they signify, e.g. green for strong support, blue for basic support, and red for objection; or different colours per a stakeholder type.

This web site is dedicated to a specific variation call advanced dotmocracy.

What is advanced dotmocracy?

What's so special about advanced dotmocracy?

How can you get consensus among an infinitely large number of people?

Doesn't this just lead to lowest common denominator decisions? Can dotmocracy produce innovative solutions?

It is true that dotmocracy will produce some mundane answers that have high degrees of acceptance, but because the process does not limit the creation of ideas, if people have radical ideas there is no reason for them not to be posted.

In fact, because ideas can be presented in written form and anonymously, shy and timid people are more likely to share their unique ideas. Once innovative ideas are posted, if they are good ideas, they should receive a decent level of approval from the participants who recognize them as such. Results will depend on the culture of the group and how open-minded they are to new ideas.

What if you have competing or divergent agreements?

At the end of a dotmocracy process it is up to the trusted decision-makers to review the results and produce a decision that will work for the organization. When there is no single obvious preferred answer (which is most often the case) the decision-makers will need to piece popular ideas together into a practical hybrid solution.

If the decision-makers can make a final decision that does not included the most popular ideas, is it really democratic?

As long as the results are available to be reviewed by the public, the transparency of the process makes it obvious when a leader is following the preferences of the people and when they are being ignored. In effect there is a high degree of pressure on the leaders to follow the expressed will of the people.

Unfortunately the most preferred ideas may not always be practical and thus it is still dependent on the trusted decision-makers to make a realistic plan and to explain why it includes some ideas and ignores others.

What about debate, dialogue and deliberation; where do they fit in?

Debate is the form of discussion where a group divides into two or more sides that argue trying to win their perspective. Debate focuses on points of difference and is thus destructive to group cohesion and often ignores potential solutions that would work for everyone. Dotmocracy does not include debate.

Dialogue is discussion where the goal is to understand issues and each others' perspectives, not to convince others of your view or to find a solution. Dialogue is a helpful process to use to increase trust and understanding before engaging in dotmocracy.

Deliberation is discussion where the participants give critical analysis and propose ideas seeking a common popular solution.While there are some instances when a group may use dotmocracy outside of a meeting to record ideas and opinions on relatively simple questions, for any complex questions facing a group, dotmocracy should be conducted within meetings that include extensive deliberation. Dotmocracy invites people to form small deliberation groups and to generate many written proposals from each group, but also allowing individuals to post ideas without requiring group consent. As well, during the dotting process participants can continue dialogue via the written comments and may continue to discuss and generate ideas through out.

What are points of potential failure?

As in any group process there are always many ways for causing the process to fail. Most are quite obvious and easy to avoid:

• The participants are too tired, intoxicated or distracted.
• The process is not properly explained to the participants.
• The group does not trust the person introducing the dotmocracy process.
• There is not enough time is provided to address a complex question.
• The dotmocracy wall is not easy to find.
• There are no working pens or blank sheets to use.
• The posted question and preamble is not understood or viewed as important to the participants.
• The participants do not have enough correct information going into the process to produce intelligent and useful results.
• The leaders do not support the process and do not commit to really using the results.
• The copies of results are hidden from public review and thus leaders can claim to be following group preferences while actually following their own agenda.
• Facilitators do not follow the process instructions, rules and requirements.

If you can think of other potential points of failure, please let us know. You can also see more factors that can improve the process and facilitation tips in the dotmocracy handbook.

What if we don't have trusted decision-makers to conclude our dotmocracy process?

Then you should find some! You could force your group to continue the dotmocracy process until a single complete and popular proposal becomes evident and most folks are not interested in generating or reviewing any further ideas, but this is likely to lead to exhaustion, frustration, and potentially superficial and unsophisticated ideas.

Within every group of people there are always those few who have greater insight, wisdom, experience and good intentions that could serve as trusted decision-makers to produce useful plans from the diverse collection of dotmocracy results. The challenge is recognizing who these people are.

Traditional elections could work, but are more likely to reward those whom are charismatic rather than those whom are wise. Another method might be to recognize which few people have authored three or more popular ideas and get them to form a committee. Using some form of trust metric recommendation system to recognize whom among the group is most trusted to make decisions could be the best method, but further research is required to clarify what sort of practical system could work in the real world.

If you have suggestions, please let us know.

Could dotmocracy replace Robert's Rules of Order i.e. debate and voting on motions?

Yes but not easily. The tradition and legal requirements of debating and voting on motions is over a century old in western governance systems. From student councils to town halls to organizational annual general meetings to national government assemblies almost all follow a variation of Robert's Rules of Order. Trying to convince any organization that the standard way of doing democracy should be replaced requires a desire for change, organization wide education, and experience in successful application.

Specifically, the tradition of voting on motions provides a simple and clear result of whether or not a proposal is approved by a majority or not. Rather than debate and the usual 'politicing' in public assemblies and government process, advanced dotmocracy could be used to generate a highly popular motion that is than formally approved by a formal vote.

Such a hybrid method could more likely fit within the legal requirements of many democratic organizations, although it would not satisfy those characters who public debate or those who are only interested in satisfying their 'clients' i.e. the power brokers that helped them get elected.