Public beta: advisory demonstration only — not a City service, official vote, scientific poll, or final legal design. Read the beta notice.
Agora Vancouver
← All proposals
Open For ParticipationDemonstrationVersion 1 — currentCity of VancouverGovernanceCitywide

Should major Council decisions receive a plain-language public advisory vote?

A prototype proposal to pair selected Council agenda items with sourced summaries, trade-offs, advisory voting and a later comparison to the official Council record.

Advisory beta only — self-selected, not an election or scientific poll. One current response is maintained per browser cookie and exact tier/version under the frozen last-valid-response rule, but clearing cookies or changing devices can create another response. No residence, age, citizenship or electoral eligibility is verified.

The problem being tested

Council materials can be lengthy and public participation often arrives late in the process. Public sentiment is difficult to compare consistently with the reasons and votes recorded by elected officials.

Proposed action

Develop a non-binding public overlay using published Council records and agendas. Start with a limited pilot, disclose selection criteria, publish participation limits, and never present beta responses as official assent voting or a scientific poll.

Origin label
Demonstration
Submitter disclosure
Demonstration record prepared for the independent Agora Vancouver beta.
Responsible jurisdiction
City of Vancouver (ca-bc-vancouver)
Rule under test
60% of Yes + No responses, plus a 1000-response demo quorum
Evidence period
Aug 14, 2026, 11:45 p.m. PDT to Aug 15, 2026, 11:45 p.m. PDT
Participation window
Aug 15, 2026, 11:45 p.m. PDT to Sep 6, 2026, 11:45 p.m. PDT
Participation tier
Open beta — identity, residence and elector status are not verified
Eligibility rule
Self-selected browser participation; no identity, residence or elector verification
Response update rule
Last valid confirmed response during the half-open window replaces that browser’s earlier choice without increasing turnout.
Small-cell publication rule
Withhold every exact count and result when any nonzero choice group has fewer than 5 responses.

Version provenance

Sources and origin for version 1

  • Other: Agora/Civitas Vancouver adaptation

Change summary: Recovered beta proposal recorded as immutable version 1.

Public accountability

Proposal version history

  1. Version 1 — current · Aug 14, 2026, 11:45 p.m. PDT
    Demonstration — Recovered beta proposal recorded as immutable version 1. Open exact version

Lifecycle history

  1. Open For Participation · Aug 14, 2026, 11:45 p.m. PDT
    Initial public-beta lifecycle state recorded.

Structured deliberation

Evidence, arguments, challenges and unresolved questions

Source boundary: external links are participant-supplied, open in a separate tab and are never crawled automatically. A verification label describes human review of the citation, not proof that every claim is true.

Evidence

No reviewed contributions yet.

Support

SupportOpinionModeration: Published

A consistent public overlay would make it easier to see where Council decisions align with or diverge from participating residents and what reasons were given.

Quoted proposition: A consistent public overlay would make it easier to see where Council decisions align with or diverge from participating residents and what reasons were given.
Source type
Dataset
Source title
City of Vancouver Council voting records dataset
Publisher / author
City of Vancouver
Publication date
Aug 16, 2026
Source version
1
Verification status
Verification queued

Open participant-supplied source (opendata.vancouver.ca) (opens in a new tab)

Submitter disclosure: Seeded demonstration contribution; no participant identity is verified. This label is not identity or institutional-authority verification.

RespondSubmit a correctionReport this contribution

Oppose

OpposeOpinionModeration: Published

Self-selected online responses can be manipulated or mistaken for representative public opinion. The interface must display turnout, verification tier, recruitment method and uncertainty prominently.

Quoted proposition: Self-selected online responses can be manipulated or mistaken for representative public opinion. The interface must display turnout, verification tier, recruitment method and uncertainty prominently.
Source type
Participant Statement
Source title
Seeded beta deliberation statement
Publisher / author
Agora Vancouver beta maintainers
Publication date
Aug 16, 2026
Source version
1
Verification status
External verification not applicable

Stored reference retained for restricted human review; no public file is exposed.

Submitter disclosure: Seeded demonstration contribution; no participant identity is verified. This label is not identity or institutional-authority verification.

RespondSubmit a correctionReport this contribution

Challenges

No reviewed contributions yet.

Unresolved questions

No reviewed contributions yet.

Review layer

Provisional analysis

Provisional analysisVersion 1
Human-authored demonstration

A public overlay is technically feasible using published data, but legitimacy depends on avoiding claims that self-selected beta votes are official, verified or representative.

Potential benefits

  • Earlier public understanding
  • Council/public comparison
  • Reusable civic record

Risks and constraints

  • Brigading and duplicate participation
  • Misleading summaries
  • Selection bias
  • Campaign-finance and privacy obligations

Questions to resolve

  • Who selects agenda items?
  • How are summaries challenged?
  • What verification tiers are affordable?
  • How is campaign branding separated from official-looking civic records?
Feasibility81/100
81/100
Urgency67/100
67/100
Public benefit75/100
75/100
Fairness risk64/100
64/100
Manipulation risk72/100
72/100
Cost complexity45/100
45/100
Reversibility90/100
90/100
Confidence59/100
59/100

Do not treat scores as facts. They are editable design prompts showing how a future source-linked AI/human review might surface trade-offs. They are not a recommendation or automated decision.

Optional AI assistance

Accountable human-reviewed drafts

Only approved outputs are public. Provider drafts remain provisional and restricted until a named human records a final review.

No AI-assisted draft has received accountable human approval for this exact proposal version.

Civitas response record

Attributable review and implementation history

Case civitas-case:legacy:public-council-vote-overlayProposal version 1City of Vancouver

Authority verification: Not verified — demonstration only. This record is not a response from the City, Council, Vancouver Coastal Health, police, the Province or another institution.

Civitas demonstration: this attributable workflow record remains separate from the advisory participation aggregate and the lawful decision-maker's record.

Case scope

Assess a read-only public overlay that explains Council agenda items, gathers separate advisory responses and preserves the official Council record as controlling.

Responsible authority recorded: Independent Agora demonstration reviewer — no City or Council authority verified
Response deadline: Sep 30, 2026, 11:45 p.m. PDT

Position: Under ReviewFeasibility: Feasible With ConditionsResponse version 1

Public response

The beta demonstrates the public side. A future Civitas process would define agenda ingestion, neutral summary standards, challenges, verification tiers and publication of the official Council result.

Evidence considered

The demonstration considers the exact proposal version, reviewed source record and the beta participation method; it does not treat browser responses as verified public opinion.

No separately linked public evidence item is recorded; consult the evidence summary and exact proposal version.

Legal and policy constraints

Council procedure, official records, election and campaign rules, privacy, accessibility, records integrity and non-partisanship require separate review.

Feasibility and dependencies

A read-only prototype is technically feasible, but official data provenance, neutral summaries, correction handling and institutional authority remain unresolved.

Stable published Council data, source provenance, correction workflow, accessibility review, participation-method safeguards and an approved operating owner.

Cost range and confidence

No defensible range recorded. No implementation cost range has been approved or verified.

Rights, privacy and safety

  • Rights/equity: The design must not replace statutory participation, Council authority, fair access or viewpoint-neutral public process.
  • Privacy: Advisory participation must remain separate from identity and Council records; no individual choice should be published.
  • Safety: Abuse, impersonation, brigading and misleading official-looking presentation require operational controls.

Position and reasons

The governance and anti-manipulation rules should be tested before the tool is described as a reliable measure of Vancouver opinion.

Accountable approver: Independent Agora demonstration reviewer
Response date: Aug 15, 2026, 11:45 p.m. PDT

Response and correction history (1)
  1. Response version 1 — Under Review · Aug 15, 2026, 11:45 p.m. PDT
    Initial response version.

Implementation plans

In ProgressOwner: Unassigned demonstration implementation owner

Council overlay demonstration implementation plan

This demonstration plan records technical and governance work without implying a City commitment, adopted budget or verified institutional owner.

Expected: Nov 14, 2026, 10:45 p.m. PST
Estimated cost: No defensible range recorded
Outcome measures: Each milestone must publish an expected outcome, status history and evidence without changing the official Council record.

Latest status note: Initial plan status migrated from the legacy demonstration steps.

Milestones and immutable status history
  1. In Progress
    Document the beta voting and verification limitations

    Owner: Agora beta maintainer · expected Oct 15, 2026, 11:45 p.m. PDT
    Estimated cost: No defensible range recorded
    Outcome measure: Every public participation surface states the unverified, self-selected and non-binding method without relying on colour or hidden text.

    Latest note: The public interface must identify unverified participation and duplicate-vote limits before launch.

    Status history (1)
    1. In Progress · Aug 15, 2026, 11:45 p.m. PDT
      The public interface must identify unverified participation and duplicate-vote limits before launch.
  2. Planned
    Prototype a Council-record data adapter

    Owner: Unassigned demonstration implementation owner · expected Nov 14, 2026, 10:45 p.m. PST
    Estimated cost: No defensible range recorded
    Outcome measure: A deterministic read-only adapter reproduces published agenda and voting-record fixtures while naming City minutes as the official record.

    Latest note: Use published City data; corresponding minutes remain the official record.

    Status history (1)
    1. Planned · Aug 15, 2026, 11:45 p.m. PDT
      Use published City data; corresponding minutes remain the official record.
Plan status history (1)
  1. In Progress · Aug 15, 2026, 11:45 p.m. PDT
    Initial plan status migrated from the legacy demonstration steps.
Public Civitas audit history (2)
  1. Case.Created · Aug 15, 2026, 11:45 p.m. PDT
    Legacy demonstration case migrated to the exact proposal version.
  2. Response.Published · Aug 15, 2026, 11:45 p.m. PDT
    Initial demonstration response recorded for the exact proposal version.