This case study has looked at the significance transition from petitions to e-petitions has have for the proportion of approved proposals in the municipal council within Östersund municipality. The study has used a deliberative approach to how conversations are conducted between institution and citizen, this has been tested using a quasi-experiment and included a comparison with an after-before scenario with petitions and possible effects within different social groups that can be affected. The results of the study show that the difference between petitions and e-petitions is small, but that the color of the political majority in the council has a decisive factor behind whether proposals are approved more or rejected. Gender turns out to have a certain factor in how decisions are approved or rejected, where women received more approval than men which is interesting as it goes against previous research. / Denna fallstudie har tittat på vilken betydelse som en övergång från petitioner till e-petitioner har fått för andelen bifallna förslag i kommunfullmäktige inom Östersund kommun. Studien har använt sig av ett deliberativ tillvägagångsätt för hur samtal förs mellan institution och medborgare, detta har prövats med hjälp av ett kvasi-experiment och en jämförelse med ett efter-före scenario för möjliga effekter inom olika sociala skikt som kan påverkas med en ändrad petition. Resultatet av studien visar att skillnaden mellan petitioner och e-petitioner är små, men att den politiska majoritetens färg i fullmäktige har en avgörande faktorn bakom om förslag bifalls eller avslås. Kön visar sig även ha en viss faktor för hur beslut bifall eller avslås där kvinnor fick fler bifall än män, vilket är intressant då den går emot den tidigare forskningen. / <p>2021-06-04</p>

This essay sets out to compare political participation in two e-petition systems: The Malmö initiative in Malmö, Sweden, and Better Reykjavik in Reykjavik, Iceland. The main question of the essay concerns the aggregative and deliberative qualities of the Malmö initiative and Better Reykjavik, as well as the relationship between aggregation and deliberation. This main question is divided into four subqueries that lead the empirical analysis. These are: (1) Which similarities and differences in terms of design are there between the Malmö initiative and Better Reykjavik? (2) To what extent have these systems mobilized an aggregative political participation? (3) What similarities and differences are there concerning aspects of deliberation? and (4) What is the correlation between aggregation and deliberation like in the two e-petition systems? The method in use is a comparative cross-sectional study with a 'most similar research design'. The empirical material of the essay includes every petition published since the start of the systems in 2008, which makes it a total survey. The petitions are analyzed by way of quantitative content analysis. In addition, the essay includes a qualitative content analysis of the design of the e-petition systems. The empirical study shows that Better Reykjavik has engaged much greater political participation in both aggregative and deliberative matters than the Malmö initiative has. Most of the differences found concerning aggregation and deliberation can be explained with differences in the design of the e-petition systems. First, Better Reykjavik offers more opportunities for aggregative participation and deliberation than Malmö. Second, the likelihood of actually getting the petition read by local politicians is far greater in Reykjavik than in Malmö. Concerning the relationship between aggregation and deliberation, this study finds no signs of contradiction between the two. As this is not a zero-sum game, e-petition systems are considered to hold good potential for meeting Robert Goodins desire to unite aggregative and deliberative ideals under the slogan "First talk, then vote".