• Kai Masser
  • Linda Mory


Using gamification in policymaking and involving citizens is nothing new. In ancient Rome, the audience in the Circus Maximus was involved in decision making by voting with either a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down gesture. Moreover, gamification is a basic principle of democracy. Direct democracy in classical Athens strongly resembled today’s modern casting shows. The advantage and hence the attractiveness of gamification to citizens’ participation is rooted in the equal voting weight of every citizen, the non-determinedness of results, clear and fair rules, and the openness/transparency of the decision-making process with a visible influence of the people on the outcome. Democracies that stick with these principles remain popular and stable because gamification ensures that the gap between the ruling elites and the people does not get too large.


Ancient Rome Ancient Athens Democracy Volonté générale Evolution theory Olympic games 


  1. Clark, John Maurice. 1940. “Toward a Concept of Workable Competition.” The American Economic Review 30 (2): 241–256.Google Scholar
  2. Cogan, C., and G. Sharpe. 1986. “Planning Analysis: The Theory of Citizen Involvement.” Accessed January 5, 2018.
  3. Die Zeit. 2016a. “Österreich muss Bundespräsidentenwahl wiederholen.” Accessed January 6, 2018.
  4. Die Zeit. 2016b. “Zeugen bestätigen Unregelmäßigkeiten bei Wahl.” Accessed January 6, 2018.
  5. Encyclopedia SpongeBobia. 2018. “Patrick! The Game (Game).” Accessed January 6, 2018.!_The_Game_(game).
  6. Ghose, Katie. 2017. “‘Strong And Stable’? Westminster’s Voting System Is Anything But.” Accessed January 6, 2018.
  7. Habermas, Jürgen. 1992. Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt on the Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. Harris, Nick. 2010. “World Cup Final ‘Will Vie for Record of Second Most Watched Event in Human History’.” Accessed January 6, 2018.
  9. Hawking, Stephen. 1988. A Brief History of Time. New York: Bantam Dell Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. IOC. 2017. Accessed January 6, 2018.
  11. Kweit, M.G., and R.W. Kweit. 1981. Implementing Citizen Participation in a Bureaucratic Society. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  12. Masters, Jonatan, and Gopal Ratnam. 2016. “The U.S. Presidential Nominating Process.” Accessed January 6, 2018.
  13. Mayr, Ernst. 2001. What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  14. Mead, George, H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Merkur. 2017. “Nach Bundestagswahl: Mehrheit der Deutschen für Jamaika-Koalition.” Accessed January 6, 2018.
  16. Möller, Horst Weimarer. 1985. Die unvollendete Demokratie. Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. Pabst, Angela. 2003. Die Athenische Demokratie. Munich: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  18. Piatov, Filipp. 2017. “Stunden VOR dem Auftritt. SPD erklärt Schulz zum Sieger des TV-Duells. Wie die Partei die peinliche Wahlkampfpanne erklärt.” Accessed January 6, 2018.
  19. Saari, Donald G., and F.L. Bauer. 1988. “Symmetry, Voting and Social Choice.” The Mathematical Intelligencer 3: 32ff.Google Scholar
  20. Savage-Rumbaugh, E.S. 1992. “Language Training of Apes.” In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, edited by Sarah Bunney, 138–143. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Schultze, Rainer Olaf. 2005. “Identitäre Demokratie.” In Lexikon der Politikwissenschaft Bd. 1: A–M, edited by Dieter Nohlen and Rainer Olaf Schultze, 359. München: Beck.Google Scholar
  22. Schumpeter, Joseph S. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Sharpe, Lynda. 2011. “So You Think You Know Why Animals Play…” Accessed January 6, 2018.
  24. Smith, Kevin B. 2011. Governing States and Localities. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  25. Spiegel Online. 2017. “Einschaltquoten. 16,11 Millionen Zuschauer verfolgen TV-Duell.” Accessed January 6, 2018.
  26. Stolberg-Rilinger, Barbara. 2006. Das Heilige Römische Reich Deutscher Nation. Vom Ende des Mittelalters bis 1806. Munich: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  27. The FA. 2018. “Law 5: The Referee. IFAB Laws of the Game 2017–18.” Accessed January 6, 2018.
  28. The Housemartins. 1986. London 0 Hull 4. Label: Go! Discs.Google Scholar
  29. von Arnim, Hans Herbert. 1993. Staat ohne Diener. Was schert die Politiker das Wohl des Volkes. Munich: Kindler.Google Scholar
  30. Walker, Reena H., Andrew J. King, J. Weldon McNutt, and Neil R. Jordan. 2017. “Sneeze to Leave: African Wild Dogs (Lycaon Pictus) Use Variable Quorum Thresholds Facilitated by Sneezes in Collective Decisions.” Accessed January 6, 2018.
  31. Wordinfo. 2017. “Knowledge and Misinformation: Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down.” Accessed January 6, 2018.
  32. ZDF. 2017a. “Regierungsbildung: Mehrheit fände ‘Jamaika’-Koalition gut.” Accessed January 6, 2018.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai Masser
    • 1
  • Linda Mory
    • 2
  1. 1.German Research Institute for Public AdministrationGerman University of Administrative SciencesSpeyerGermany
  2. 2.German University of Administrative SciencesSpeyerGermany

Personalised recommendations