Certain decisions are not ripe until participants have had the opportunity to deliberate publicly. Forcing a closed vote on day one turns the result into a snapshot of preconceptions rather than consensus. For these scenarios, the platform offers the vote with debate format.
When a vote alone is not enough
Closed voting works well when options are predefined and voters have formed their opinions: electing a board among 4 candidates, approving annual financial statements, or choosing between two proposal locations.
It fails when:
- Options are not yet defined. "What should we do with the premises?" — options must be surfaced before voting.
- The decision involves nuances that cannot fit into a yes/no option. Options can be improved through collective input.
- Disagreements exist and arguments need to be presented prior to finalizing ballot choices.
What is a vote with debate?
It is an election conducted in two public phases:
- Debate phase — voters open a discussion thread, submit contributions, reply to others, and vote for or against individual contributions. Highly rated proposals rise to the top.
- Voting phase — when the debate concludes, the thread closes, and the final vote opens on the choices that emerged (or those finalized by the administrator based on the debate).
How the workflow operates
The administrator configures a vote with debate by defining:
- Initial question or discussion topic
- Start and end dates for the debate phase
- Start and end dates for the voting phase
- Final voting method (yes/no, single choice, ranking...)
- Contribution permissions (entire electoral roll, invited users only, specific categories)
- Moderation mode: pre-moderation, post-moderation, or unmoderated
Moderation: the critical factor
The success of a vote with debate depends almost entirely on moderation. Our recommendation, based on long-term cooperative practices:
demokratian supports three moderation modes:
- Pre-moderation: every submission requires moderator approval before publishing. Slower, higher quality.
- Post-moderation: submissions appear instantly; moderators can hide non-compliant posts retroactively. Agile, requires active monitoring.
- Unmoderated: recommended only for small, mature groups.
Votable contributions
Each thread contribution can itself be voted on: members can mark it as "+1" or "-1". Top-voted contributions rise automatically. This turns the debate into a relevance filter: administrators don't need to read 200 posts — the 10 highest-voted contributions naturally surface for the final ballot.
Contributions can also be tagged as a "concrete proposal for the final vote", assisting administrators in constructing Phase 2 ballot choices.
Configuring timelines
Typical timelines by size:
- Small group (10-30): 3 days debate, 2 days voting.
- Medium assembly (50-200): 7 days debate, 5 days voting.
- Large electorate (500+): 14 days debate, 7 days voting. Supported by moderated daily digests.
Use cases where this format excels
- Bylaw amendments: text needs collaborative refinement before a final vote.
- Open budget allocation: "how to allocate surplus funds". Proposals emerge directly from discussion.
- Policy resolutions in political parties: involving amendments, rewrites, and composite motions.
- Technical decisions in professional associations: technical nuances surface only during debate.
Voting is merely the final step. Voting with debate recognizes that deliberation must come first.