Grounding on scientific literature, academic training, and consultations with other scholars, the researcher defined key terms, refined methods, identified target countries, and analysed government documents and social media posts. Eight countries were selected to study the role of i-voting for open government. To see the differences and similarities better, the countries were compared one by one: Brazil with Dominican Republic, Chile with Columbia, Canada with New Zealand, and Moldova with Ukraine. Central attention was devoted to the joint citizen-authorities co-creation of national action plans within the Open Government Partnership. The key focus was on i-voting, but other forms of interaction like offline and online discussions were viewed too. As a result, it was found that most voters belonged to civil society and because of this the impact of voting on voters almost coincided with the voting impact on civil society. The deepest influence of i-voting found in some countries was the stronger collaboration between citizens and the authorities. The link with sustainable development goals made open government policies more inclusive and gender-focused. Interestingly enough, although formally the i-voting was advisory, in most cases it influenced open government priorities due to its role, combination with deliberation, and actual joint decision making by civil society and government representatives. It is worth noting that usually i-voting was not the only cause, but one among other traditional and innovative formats of nudging the government to be more open to the public. In the end, it was the government’s approach to transparency, communication, and responsibility with citizens that shaped the voting impact. The findings were presented at eight academic conferences, four practitioner forums, eight invited lectures, published in three datasets, two conference proceedings, and two journal articles, exploited in three policy briefs, and disseminated in five media pieces and social media posts.
