I reproduce below, together with the original text, the reply I posted on https://votoelettronico.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/90/comment-page-1/#comment-4 to a criticism about the absence of electronic voting from our Open Assembly a few days ago. Apart from the opportunity to collect the opinions of the Members on the subject after the event, it seems to me an interesting starting point for reflection on the theme of "innovation as a value in itself" or of "innovation as an offer in the face of a demand" . In the comment I deliberately avoided taking up the polemical vein of the author of the post, but constructive reflection is always welcome here on our site. What do you think?
States General of Innovation, really innovative?
The assembly has just concluded States General of Innovation, an association that wants to be a point of reference in terms of creativity and innovation. In their discussions, there is often talk of breaking down the digital divide and renewing the state through Open Government, but a question arises spontaneously when reading the invitation to participate in the meeting. How is it possible to be promoters of a true and profound technological and social innovation if the assembly still takes place only with physical seats and you have to go to Bertinoro to vote?
The physical assembly is certainly a useful moment of meeting and discussion but excludes many, who, however, could have discussed and voted from home.
This is the reply.
Dear Dr Pugliatti,
I am a member of the Board of the General States of Innovation and I accept the criticism you have expressed. I'll try to explain the reasons for our choice since I think it's the starting point for a useful discussion within us as well.
We started the process to integrate physical voting procedures with electronic voting procedures as permitted by our Articles of Association, but we did not proceed in this direction for two main reasons.
The first – decisive – is that we have surveyed the interest in this option among our shareholders and have not received any requests to that effect. It would have been the classic technological answer to a question that does not exist at the moment. Of course, an electronic vote could have been held up just to give a signal, but the hard practice of managing an association that is completely based on volunteering requires us to take into account the available resources and concentrate resources, human and otherwise, to provide answers to priority needs.
The second reason was the clear will to count and understand who really "believes" in the General States of Innovation. Three days in Bertinoro - a splendid place - were a great commitment of time first of all and also a decent expense these days. Many Members have come and some new members have joined. They have been three truly excellent and useful days. It is obvious that in this way we have lost some people who would have liked to be there, but objectively could not. However, our association is still in its infancy. It must grow and become stronger thanks to motivated Members who know each other. Personally, I find it right that in this context the shareholder who put SGI ahead of the many other commitments that we all have should be privileged. In the future, when the team is close-knit and cohesive, then electronic voting will certainly be an option used for everyone's convenience.
Being absent – and therefore being wrong 🙂 – more than remote electronic voting, which would still have required early definition of a precise series of points to vote on and the possibility of remote two-way dialogue (all things technically feasible, but certainly less important than seeing oneself counting oneself recognizing oneself), I miss an overall summary of Bertinoro's works. Am I the one who doesn't know where to look, or is the summary just not there? Thank you!
Dear Dr Russo,
Thank you for your reply and I find the reflection you started on the SGI website on the subject of "innovation as a value in itself" and "innovation as an offer in the face of a demand" very interesting.
I understand your reasons but I would like to explain the value of an electronic voting system which, in my opinion, does not boil down to convenience.
The decision to offer the possibility of voting online has a communication and cultural value for the Organization and is configured as a distinctive factor, which allows differentiation and distinction. Allowing everyone to participate in the Association's critical events is an important sign of transparency and openness which certainly leads to greater participation. If the adoption of such a system is conceived and communicated in such a way, I think it can trigger a strong demand and, more importantly, an engagement over time.
I certainly agree on the importance of the assembly moment, as a direct meeting and an opportunity for discussion, which no technology can make up for. Indeed, online voting services are often designed to complement the traditional assembly and not to replace it.
In light of the strategic and innovative value of adopting a system of this type, the investment in a SaaS service for electronic voting, which can even be negligible, seems to me to be justified.
Finally, I would like to submit to your attention and it would seem interesting to me to be able to reason on a further development of this reflection on the value of "electronic voting" innovation, in line with the European Projects in which I am participating. Could internet voting also be one of the key mechanisms for interfacing with the Public Administration, from a Smart Cities perspective?