iEUELECT

Funding programme

Erasmus+ KA210-YOU – Small-scale Partnerships in Youth

Project reference

2023-1-PL01-KA210-YOU-000165973

Period

2023–2024

Coordinating organisation

Senfineco Association, Poland

Participating countries

Poland, Greece, Romania

Official project website

Visit official website

iEUElect aimed to strengthen young people’s understanding of democratic participation, European citizenship and the importance of voting through an original educational tabletop game and complementary civic engagement activities.

The project was developed in the context of the 2024 European Parliament elections and sought to make democratic decision-making more accessible, engaging and inclusive.

Specific learning objectives

• Democratic awareness: Increase understanding of democratic principles, voting and the role of citizens in shaping public decisions.
• European citizenship: Encourage participants to reflect on European values, EU policies and the relevance of democratic institutions to everyday life.
• Civic participation: Promote awareness of the importance of voting, political engagement and participation in democratic processes.
• Critical thinking: Develop the ability to examine competing policy proposals, consider potential consequences and evaluate different arguments.
• Communication and argumentation: Encourage participants to present proposals, explain their positions, persuade others and participate in democratic debate.
• Perspective-taking: Help participants recognise that citizens may have different priorities and preferences regarding public policies and societal challenges.
• Decision-making: Introduce the relationship between collective choices, voting outcomes and the implementation or rejection of proposed policies.
• Inclusion and diversity: Support participation by young people from different backgrounds, including those with fewer opportunities, and encourage respect for diverse opinions.
• Social responsibility: Encourage reflection on public decisions affecting equality, community development, sustainability, health and technological innovation.
• Educational innovation: Provide youth workers, teachers and facilitators with an adaptable game-based resource for civic education.

Intended learning outcomes

The project sought to combine knowledge of democratic processes with practical experiences involving public speaking, voting, prediction, discussion and consideration of policy consequences.

These are intended educational outcomes. The publicly reviewed sources do not provide sufficient quantitative evidence to establish whether participation in the game produces measurable changes in democratic knowledge, attitudes or civic behaviour.

iEUElect developed an original educational tabletop game entitled WhatIF, designed to introduce democratic participation, voting and the consequences of collective decisions through interactive gameplay.

Game developed: WhatIF – Print & Play Board Game on Civic Society Engagement

Players act as representatives of imaginary nations and participate in a simplified democratic decision-making process involving competing policy proposals, short speeches, predictions and secret voting.

Game mechanics

• Policy proposal cards: Each card presents a Plan relating to a social, political or environmental issue, including different consequences depending on whether the proposal is adopted.
• Public speaking and persuasion: Two players act as Speakers in each round, presenting competing Plans and attempting to persuade the other participants to support their proposal.
• Secret predictions: Before hearing the Speakers’ arguments, the remaining players predict which Plan will receive more votes.
• Secret voting: Players cast coloured tokens into a voting box to support one of the two competing proposals or express indifference.
• Majority decision-making: The Plan receiving the most votes is selected. The rules also establish specific procedures for resolving tied votes.
• Outcome resolution: After voting, the Speakers reveal the consequences associated with the adoption or rejection of their respective Plans.
• Prediction and voting rewards: Players earn points according to their voting decisions and their ability to anticipate the result. Speakers receive points based on the votes obtained by their proposals.
• Rotating participation: The First Player role passes around the table, allowing participants to take turns proposing Plans and speaking to the group.

Six thematic categories

• Learning and Self-Development.
• Health and Well-Being.
• Environment and Sustainability.
• Community Role.
• Equality and Inclusion.
• Digital Transformation and Innovation.

Documented game components

• Policy proposal cards, organised into six thematic categories.
• Voting tokens in different colours, including an indifference option.
• Prediction tokens used to anticipate voting outcomes.
• A voting box for collecting secret votes.
• One standard six-sided die for selecting categories.
• A First Player Indicator.
• A scoring system rewarding Speakers and voters according to the results of each round.

Game phases

1. Announcement and Prediction: Selection of competing Plans, announcement of topics, secret predictions and short persuasive speeches.
2. Voting: Participants choose which proposal to support using voting tokens.
3. Resolution and Scoring: The result is announced, the corresponding outcomes are revealed and players receive points.

Technical characteristics

• Game approach: Custom-Designed Educational Games.
• Game format: Physical print-and-play tabletop game, primarily card-based, with voting and prediction tokens and a digital Tabletopia version.
• Player count: The physical rulebook describes play for seven or more participants. Tabletopia lists digital setups for 1–8 players. These specifications should not be treated as identical.
• Recommended age: 16 years and older, according to Tabletopia.
• Playing time: Approximately 30–45 minutes, according to Tabletopia.
• Languages: English, Polish, Greek and Romanian.
• Availability: Downloadable print-and-play materials, rulebook, Trainer’s Guide and online gameplay.

Educational focus

WhatIF uses a simplified model of democratic participation to encourage public speaking, argumentation, voting, prediction and reflection on collective decisions.

The game illustrates general democratic decision-making rather than reproducing the complete institutional procedures of European Parliament elections or EU legislative processes.

Games developed: One original educational tabletop game, WhatIF.

iEUElect applies a purpose-designed Board Game-Based Learning approach in which democratic participation is represented through policy proposals, persuasive speeches, secret predictions, voting and the exploration of collective outcomes.

The game combines a simplified model of democratic decision-making with communication, strategic anticipation and discussion of policy consequences.

Documented gameplay sequence

1. Game preparation: Participants organise themselves around the table. Policy cards are separated into six thematic categories, and the First Player Indicator is assigned.
2. Category selection: The First Player rolls a six-sided die to identify the category of the round and selects two Plan cards from the corresponding deck.
3. Selection of Speakers: The First Player keeps one Plan, while the player immediately to their left receives the other. Both participants act as Speakers during the round.
4. Announcement of proposals: The Speakers introduce the topics of their Plans so that the other participants know which alternatives are being considered.
5. Prediction: Players who are not Speakers secretly predict which Plan will obtain the most votes.
6. Public speaking: Each Speaker has 60 seconds to explain why their Plan should be supported and to persuade the remaining participants.
7. Secret voting: The other players cast a token supporting one of the proposals or expressing indifference.
8. Resolution: The votes are counted and the winning proposal is identified. The rules provide procedures for resolving tied votes.
9. Consequences: The Players reveal the corresponding outcomes of the winning and losing Plans, illustrating the consequences of collective decisions.
10. Scoring and rotation: Participants receive points according to the voting and prediction results. The First Player Indicator passes to the next participant and a new round begins.

Facilitator’s role

The project provides a dedicated Trainer’s Guide intended to support the use of WhatIF in formal and non-formal educational settings.

According to the project documentation, the guide includes facilitation recommendations, contextual information on scenarios, suggestions for adapting activities and questions encouraging critical reflection.

Facilitators may use these resources to explain democratic concepts, encourage respectful participation, clarify misunderstandings and guide discussion of the consequences associated with public decisions.

Reflection and debriefing

The cards explicitly describe the consequences of adopting or rejecting a proposed Plan, creating opportunities for participants to reflect on the relationship between collective decisions and public outcomes.

The Trainer’s Guide is described as containing reflective questions and suggestions for discussion.

However, the reviewed rulebook does not prescribe a separate compulsory post-game debriefing session or a standardised procedure for assessing democratic reasoning. Reflection therefore requires deliberate integration into the educational activity.

Participation and inclusion

Player rotation allows different participants to become Speakers, while voting provides an opportunity for non-speaking participants to influence the outcome of each round.

The indifference option also acknowledges that participants may be unwilling or unable to support either proposal.

Facilitators should nevertheless consider differences in public speaking confidence, communication skills and prior political knowledge to ensure equitable participation.

Relationship between mechanics and learning

Public speeches create opportunities for argumentation and persuasion; secret voting represents collective choice; predictions introduce strategic anticipation; and the outcome cards encourage consideration of the consequences of public policies.

The educational value of the activity depends on connecting these mechanisms with accurate explanations of democratic systems and reflection on the quality of the arguments and decisions.

Educational transfer

The project presents WhatIF as an adaptable resource for youth organisations, schools and community groups. Its print-and-play format and multilingual resources support use in different educational settings.

The game is intended as an introductory simulation of democratic decision-making. It should not be treated as a complete representation of European Union institutional procedures.

iEUElect was implemented through an Erasmus+ small-scale partnership involving youth organisations from Poland, Greece and Romania.

The project combined the development of an original educational tabletop game with local awareness campaigns, activities promoting civic participation and dissemination of educational resources.

Documented implementation activities

• Game development: The partnership created WhatIF, a print-and-play educational game introducing democratic decision-making through policy proposals, public speaking, prediction and voting.
• Multilingual educational materials: The game was developed with supporting rules and facilitation resources in English, Polish, Greek and Romanian.
• Local awareness campaigns: The partnership organised activities in Poland, Greece and Romania to encourage democratic awareness, participation and engagement with European issues among young people.
• Community engagement: The project website documents local activities targeting young people and wider communities, including participants in urban and rural settings.
• Game demonstrations: On 6–7 July 2024, Dracon Rules Design Studio presented WhatIF at Athens Tabletop, where visitors had opportunities to experience demonstration sessions.
• Multiplier Event in Greece: On 29 October 2024, Dracon Rules Design Studio organised an event at Hotel Kierion in Karditsa involving more than 30 participants, including youth workers, educators, municipal representatives and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds.
• Practical game testing: During the Greek event, participants tried the game and discussed its potential application in schools, youth organisations and community settings.
• Educational dissemination: The project published its game materials, rulebook, Trainer’s Guide and information about civic participation through project and partner channels.
• Digital availability: WhatIF was also made available through Tabletopia, enabling online access to the educational game.

Evaluation approach

The available documentation confirms practical demonstrations, participant interaction with the game and qualitative discussion of its educational potential.

Participants at the Greek multiplier event provided reactions and suggestions concerning the use of the game in civic education activities.

However, the reviewed public sources do not document a systematic educational evaluation involving validated measurement instruments, comparison groups or published pre- and post-intervention results.

Available evidence

The reviewed sources establish that the game was developed, demonstrated and used in public educational and dissemination activities.

The Greek multiplier event report identifies more than 30 attendees. This figure refers to the dissemination event and should not be interpreted as an evaluation sample or as the number of participants completing a formal learning assessment.

No published quantitative results were identified demonstrating changes in democratic knowledge, European Union awareness, political participation, argumentation skills or civic attitudes following gameplay.

Evidence classification: Documented game development, practical demonstrations, public implementation and qualitative participant feedback. Quantitative educational effectiveness has not been established from the publicly reviewed sources.

Evaluation limitations: Positive reactions to the game and participation in demonstration activities do not provide sufficient evidence to determine its educational effectiveness.

Further research would be needed to assess the quality of democratic reasoning, improvements in knowledge, changes in attitudes and possible transfer to actual civic participation.

Project status: Completed on 30 September 2024 according to the published project dates. The Greek multiplier event was reported as taking place on 29 October 2024, after the stated project completion date.

iEUElect developed a collection of educational resources intended to make democratic decision-making and European citizenship more accessible through an original tabletop game.

Available resources

• WhatIF Print-and-Play Game: An original educational tabletop game in which participants present policy proposals, make predictions, debate alternatives, cast votes and examine the consequences of collective decisions.
• Policy Proposal Cards: Cards organised into six thematic categories addressing learning, health, sustainability, community participation, inclusion and digital transformation. Each card presents possible consequences associated with adopting or rejecting a proposal.
• Game Rulebook: A 14-page document describing the components, game preparation, speaking and voting mechanisms, prediction rules, scoring system and overall sequence of play.
• Trainer’s Guide: A resource intended to help educators and youth workers facilitate the game, manage discussions, provide contextual information and encourage critical reflection.
• Multilingual Materials: The game is available in English, Polish, Greek and Romanian, supporting implementation in different European educational contexts.
• Digital Game: A free Tabletopia version allowing access to WhatIF through a web browser. The platform lists configurations for one to eight players.
• Local Campaign Materials: Information and examples from activities promoting European democracy, civic participation and youth engagement in the participating countries.
• Educational Dissemination Materials: Project descriptions, photographs, news articles and reports documenting activities and public demonstrations.

Accessibility and transferability

The print-and-play format allows educational organisations to reproduce the physical game without purchasing a commercial edition.

The multilingual resources and online implementation facilitate access by youth organisations, teachers, trainers and community groups.

The Trainer’s Guide is described as providing adaptation options for different group sizes, educational objectives and available time.

Licensing

The English rulebook identifies the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) licence.

The applicable licensing conditions of individual game components and online resources should be checked before modification or redistribution.

Documentation limitations

The complete English rulebook was reviewed through Tabletopia. The Trainer’s Guide and printable card sets are listed on the partner’s website, but their complete contents were not independently examined during this review.

iEUElect provides an interesting example of purpose-designed Board Game-Based Learning focused on democratic participation, public speaking and collective decision-making.

Its main methodological contribution lies in transforming proposal presentation, persuasion, prediction and voting into a structured tabletop experience that can be used to introduce democratic processes to young people.

Methodological strengths

1. Direct integration of voting into gameplay. Voting is not merely a topic discussed during the session but a central mechanic determining the outcome of each round. Participants experience the relationship between individual preferences and collective decisions.
2. Active participation through public speaking. Players take turns presenting policy proposals and attempting to persuade others. This creates opportunities to practise concise argumentation, communication and the defence of different positions.
3. Secret voting and personal choice. The use of concealed voting tokens allows players to make choices independently, illustrating an important procedural element of democratic participation.
4. Representation of different policy outcomes. Proposal cards include alternative consequences depending on whether a Plan is adopted or rejected, providing a basis for discussing the implications of public decisions.
5. Rotation of speaking roles. The sequential rotation of the First Player role gives participants opportunities to present proposals rather than limiting public speaking to a fixed group.
6. Recognition of indifference. The game includes a voting option representing indifference, providing a potential starting point for discussing abstention, disengagement and the difficulties citizens may experience when choosing between alternatives.
7. Broad thematic coverage. The six categories allow participants to consider democratic choices in areas such as health, sustainability, community development, inclusion and digital transformation.
8. Practical transferability. The combination of print-and-play materials, a documented rulebook, trainer guidance, multilingual resources and a digital version supports potential use in different educational settings.

Methodological limitations

1. Scoring does not assess the democratic quality of decisions.

The game rewards successful predictions, voting outcomes and the number of votes obtained by Speakers. It does not explicitly reward the quality of arguments, evidence-based reasoning, respect for minority rights or the social desirability of a proposed policy.

Consequently, players may succeed by predicting or influencing the majority without necessarily demonstrating a deeper understanding of democratic principles.

2. Prediction occurs before argumentation.

According to the rulebook, players predict which proposal will be successful before the Speakers present their persuasive arguments. This creates a strategic prediction challenge, but it limits the direct relationship between the quality of a speech and the accuracy of the preceding prediction.

3. Democratic decision-making is simplified.

The game represents competing proposals, speeches and majority voting, but it does not reproduce the full institutional complexity of the European Union or the procedures governing European Parliament elections and EU legislation.

For this reason, the game is best interpreted as an introductory simulation of democratic participation rather than as a detailed institutional simulation.

4. Majority support is not equivalent to ethical justification.

The most popular proposal wins the vote, regardless of whether participants have examined its factual basis, long-term consequences or implications for disadvantaged groups. Facilitated reflection is required to distinguish majority preference from the quality or fairness of a public decision.

5. The competitive structure may influence participation.

Because Speakers are rewarded according to the votes they receive, players may prioritise persuasive effectiveness over nuanced discussion. Differences in communication confidence may also influence the outcome.

6. Educational effectiveness remains unverified.

Although public demonstrations and participant feedback are documented, quantitative evidence demonstrating improvements in democratic knowledge, critical thinking or civic engagement has not been identified.

Ludus Magnus assessment

WhatIF offers a useful and accessible model for exploring democratic participation through tabletop gameplay. Its most valuable feature is the integration of policy presentation, argumentation and voting into the core game structure.

The game’s educational potential is particularly relevant when facilitators encourage participants to move beyond the immediate voting results and examine why proposals were supported, how arguments influenced preferences and whether majority decisions are necessarily fair or beneficial.

The use of predetermined consequences on Plan cards can support this reflection, although their educational value depends on how accurately they represent real-world relationships and whether participants are encouraged to question and discuss them.

For educational replication, Ludus Magnus recommends combining gameplay with a structured debriefing addressing the quality of arguments, the meaning of voting and indifference, the implications of majority decisions and the differences between the game’s simplified model and real European democratic institutions.

Future research could evaluate changes in democratic knowledge, argumentation quality, perspective-taking and civic participation attitudes, using validated instruments, comparison conditions and follow-up assessments.

Independence of assessment

iEUElect was developed by an external European consortium. This appraisal by Ludus Magnus is based on the project’s publicly available documentation, the complete English game rulebook, the Tabletopia game information and partner implementation reports. It does not constitute direct observation of a full educational intervention or an independent experimental evaluation of learning outcomes.