Less is more. Exploring opportunities and challenges of digital crowdsourcing for political parties.

Open research Europe Pub Date : 2026-04-16 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.12688/openreseurope.22121.2
Francseco Nasi
{"title":"Less is more. Exploring opportunities and challenges of digital crowdsourcing for political parties.","authors":"Francseco Nasi","doi":"10.12688/openreseurope.22121.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Political parties across liberal democracies face a persistent crisis of legitimacy, representation, and membership. In response, scholars and practitioners proposed a range of deliberative reforms aimed at making parties more internally democratic. Yet such innovations have proven difficult to implement due to structural features inherent to political parties, including hierarchical organization and electoral imperatives. Similarly, digital platforms promised to revolutionize internal democracy but largely disappointed expectations. This impasse highlights the need for lighter forms of democratic engagement that may better align with the operational realities of parties. Among these alternatives, digital crowdsourcing emerges as a possible path forward. Digital crowdsourcing refers to processes in which organizations use technology to tap into people's distributed knowledge, combining bottom-up input with top-down coordination to solve problems, carry out tasks, or generate ideas.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This theoretical paper develops an analytical framework tailored to the organizational and democratic specificities of political parties. I propose a typology of digital crowdsourcing for parties based on two dimensions (policy impact and power structure) yielding four forms: vertical, performative, expressive, and democratic crowdsourcing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thanks to this typology, I identify three core opportunities associated with the adoption of these tools: enhanced democratic participation, increased flexibility, and improved accessibility for members and supporters. Conversely, I outline three central challenges: tensions between inclusion and exclusion, risks of elite capture, and conflicts between competing sources of democratic legitimacy. Finally, I present a set of strategies for achieving a feasible democratic crowdsourcing in political parties.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Integrating digital democratic innovations into political parties (especially long-established ones) remains particularly challenging. However, lighter forms of participation, such as digital crowdsourcing, may be more feasible to implement.</p>","PeriodicalId":74359,"journal":{"name":"Open research Europe","volume":"5 ","pages":"397"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12873537/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open research Europe","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.22121.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Political parties across liberal democracies face a persistent crisis of legitimacy, representation, and membership. In response, scholars and practitioners proposed a range of deliberative reforms aimed at making parties more internally democratic. Yet such innovations have proven difficult to implement due to structural features inherent to political parties, including hierarchical organization and electoral imperatives. Similarly, digital platforms promised to revolutionize internal democracy but largely disappointed expectations. This impasse highlights the need for lighter forms of democratic engagement that may better align with the operational realities of parties. Among these alternatives, digital crowdsourcing emerges as a possible path forward. Digital crowdsourcing refers to processes in which organizations use technology to tap into people's distributed knowledge, combining bottom-up input with top-down coordination to solve problems, carry out tasks, or generate ideas.

Methods: This theoretical paper develops an analytical framework tailored to the organizational and democratic specificities of political parties. I propose a typology of digital crowdsourcing for parties based on two dimensions (policy impact and power structure) yielding four forms: vertical, performative, expressive, and democratic crowdsourcing.

Results: Thanks to this typology, I identify three core opportunities associated with the adoption of these tools: enhanced democratic participation, increased flexibility, and improved accessibility for members and supporters. Conversely, I outline three central challenges: tensions between inclusion and exclusion, risks of elite capture, and conflicts between competing sources of democratic legitimacy. Finally, I present a set of strategies for achieving a feasible democratic crowdsourcing in political parties.

Conclusion: Integrating digital democratic innovations into political parties (especially long-established ones) remains particularly challenging. However, lighter forms of participation, such as digital crowdsourcing, may be more feasible to implement.

Abstract Image

少即是多。探索政党数字化众包的机遇与挑战。
背景:自由民主国家的政党面临着合法性、代表性和成员资格的持续危机。作为回应,学者和实践者提出了一系列旨在使政党内部更加民主的协商改革。然而,由于政党固有的结构特征,包括等级组织和选举要求,这些创新已被证明难以实施。同样,数字平台承诺要彻底改革内部民主,但在很大程度上辜负了人们的期望。这种僵局凸显出,需要更轻松的民主参与形式,以更好地符合各党派的运作现实。在这些替代方案中,数字众包成为一种可能的发展途径。数字众包是指组织利用技术挖掘人们的分布式知识,结合自下而上的输入和自上而下的协调来解决问题、执行任务或产生想法的过程。方法:这篇理论论文开发了一个适合政党组织和民主特点的分析框架。我提出了一种基于两个维度(政策影响和权力结构)的政党数字众包类型,产生了四种形式:垂直众包、表演众包、表达众包和民主众包。结果:由于这种类型,我确定了与采用这些工具相关的三个核心机会:加强民主参与,增加灵活性,改善成员和支持者的可及性。相反,我概述了三个核心挑战:包容与排斥之间的紧张关系,精英被捕获的风险,以及民主合法性竞争来源之间的冲突。最后,我提出了一套在政党中实现民主众包的策略。结论:将数字民主创新整合到政党(尤其是历史悠久的政党)中仍然具有特别大的挑战性。然而,更轻松的参与形式,如数字众包,可能更可行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书