A Multicriteria View About Judicial and Legislative Decision Making in Digital Cities and Societies

  • Vitor N. CoelhoEmail author
  • Thays A. Oliveira
  • Iara V. O. Figueiredo
  • Marcone J. F. Souza
  • Iuri Veloso
Part of the Urban Computing book series (UC)


The constant evolution of cities has driven the development of new tools for society. Applications inspired by operational research techniques, which aid decision making, can make viable dreams already dreamed up by philosophers. Among these, we highlight more participatory, legitimate, and reliable judicial and legislative systems. In this context, a multicriteria analysis seems necessary, balancing the different versions, beliefs, cultures, and consequent weights and measures desired by each citizen. In this paper, we present a new model for judicial/legislative processes in digital cities. The system proposes the use of sets of solutions, obtained from different weights adopted according to personal characteristics of those involved in the voting process. From a simple case of study, we highlight the possibilities, flexibility, and potential of the proposed system. The proposed framework shows up as promising tool for assisting decision making in other similar voting scenarios.


  1. 1.
    Almirall, E., Wareham, J., Ratti, C., Conesa, P., Bria, F., Gaviria, A., Edmondson, A.: Smart cities at the crossroads: new tensions in city transformation. Calif. Manag. Rev. 59(1), 141–152 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bartholdi III, J.J., Tovey, C.A., Trick, M.A.: The computational difficulty of manipulating an election. Soc. Choice Welf. 6(3), 227–241 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Batty, M., Axhausen, K.W., Giannotti, F., Pozdnoukhov, A., Bazzani, A., Wachowicz, M., Ouzounis, G., Portugali, Y.: Smart cities of the future. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 214(1), 481–518 (2012). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brinks, D.: Judicial reform and independence in Brazil and Argentina: the beginning of a new millennium. Tex. Int’l L. J. 40, 595 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cady, M.C., Yin, C.W., de Araújo Filho, J.P., Vasconcelos, A., Nascimento, J.M.B., de Jesus Cerqueira, A., Olívia, M., Setúbal, S., Junior, O.P.S., Pessoa, R.B.: Tribunal do júri: uma breve reflexão. Jus Navigandi. Teresina. a 9 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cano, J., Hernandez, R., Ros, S.: Distributed framework for electronic democracy in smart cities. Computer 47(10), 65–71 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carvalho, E., Leito, N.: The power of judges: the supreme court and the Institutional Design of the National Council of Justice [o poder dos juzes: supremo tribunal federal e o desenho institucional do conselho nacional de justia]. Revista de Sociologia e Politica 21(45), 13–27 (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chalkiadakis, G., Elkind, E., Polukarov, M., Jennings, N.R.: The price of democracy in coalition formation. In: Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 1, AAMAS ’09, pp. 401–408. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland (2009).
  9. 9.
    Coe, A., Paquet, G., Roy, J.: E-governance and smart communities: a social learning challenge. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 19(1), 80–93 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dağdeviren, M.: Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with AHP and PROMETHEE. J. Intell. Manuf. 19(4), 397–406 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dai, W.: B-money (1998).
  12. 12.
    Endriss, U.: Vote manipulation in the presence of multiple sincere ballots. In: Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, pp. 125–134. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gokhale, S., Kapshe, C.: Review of decentralised planning initiatives and urban local government functions in India. In: Dynamics of Local Governments: A Comparative Study of India, UK and the USA. Local Government Quarterly, p. 85. Local Government Institute, Mumbai (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hongfei, D., Zhang, E.: NEO: A Distributed Network for the Smart Economy (2018).
  15. 15.
    Lemos, R.: Using the Blockchain for the Public Interest (2016).
  16. 16.
    Mattei, N., Narodytska, N., Walsh, T.: How hard is it to control an election by breaking ties? (2013, preprint). arXiv:1304.6174Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Melo Filho, H.C.: A reforma do poder judiciário brasileiro. In: Seminário sobre a Reforma do Judiciário (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mission, S.C.: Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India (2015).
  19. 19.
    Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Odendaal, N.: Towards the digital city in South Africa: issues and constraints. J. Urban Technol. 13(3), 29–48 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pinheiro, A.C.: A reforma do judiciário: uma análise econômica. Trabalho apresentado no Seminário Internacional “Sociedade e a Reforma do Estado”, realizado em São Paulo de 26 (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pinheiro, A.C.: Judiciário, reforma e economia: a visão dos magistrados. Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (Ipea) (2003).
  23. 23.
    Políticos, R.: Ranking políticos (2014).
  24. 24.
    Roberts, N.: Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 34(4), 315–353 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schaffers, H., Komninos, N., Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Nilsson, M., Oliveira, A.: Smart cities and the future internet: towards cooperation frameworks for open innovation. In: The Future Internet Assembly, pp. 431–446. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shah, A.: Balance, accountability, and responsiveness: lessons about decentralization. World Bank Policy Research Working (2021) (1999).
  27. 27.
    Shoham, Y., Leyton-Brown, K.: Multiagent systems: algorithmic, game-theoretic, and logical foundations. In: Aggregating Preferences: Social Choice. Cambridge University, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Silva, L.: Smartcities on the Ethereum blockchain (2016).
  29. 29.
    Sinhoretto, J.: Law reform (case study) [reforma da justia (estudo de caso)]. Tempo Social 19(2), 157–177 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stepan, A.: Brazil’s decentralized federalism: bringing government closer to the citizens? Daedalus 129(2), 145–169 (2000)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Terra, L., Ventura, C., Medeiros, M., Passador, J.: Strategies for the distribution of power in Brazil: a proposal from the perspective of the viable system model (VSM). Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 33(2), 224–234 (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    THEKEY: A Decentralized Ecosystem of an Identity Verification Tool Using National Big-Data and Blockchain (2017). White Paper,
  33. 33.
    Weyns, D., Omicini, A., Odell, J.: Environment as a first class abstraction in multiagent systems. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 14(1), 5–30 (2007). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zanella, A., Bui, N., Castellani, A., Vangelista, L., Zorzi, M.: Internet of things for smart cities. IEEE Internet Things J. 1(1), 22–32 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zeleny, M., Cochrane, J.L.: Multiple Criteria Decision Making. University of South Carolina, South Carolina (1973)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vitor N. Coelho
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thays A. Oliveira
    • 2
  • Iara V. O. Figueiredo
    • 3
  • Marcone J. F. Souza
    • 4
  • Iuri Veloso
    • 5
  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceUniversidade Federal FluminenseNiteróiBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Engineering and Information and Communication TechnologiesUniversitat Pompeu FabraBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Escola Nacional de Saúde PúblicaFiocruzRio de JaneiroBrazil
  4. 4.Department of Computer ScienceUniversidade Federal de Ouro PretoOuro PretoBrazil
  5. 5.Faculdade Mineira de Direito, PUC MinasBelo HorizonteBrazil

Personalised recommendations