Works with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or your own local model: paste this prompt and your AI will co-facilitate this exercise with you.

Help me prepare and run the exercise below. First ask for my participant count, time, setting, access needs and intended result. Check these against the stated limits. Use the supplied rules and materials. Explain any proposed changes before using them, and label them as adaptations. Do not invent source claims or require personal disclosure. Give me one step at a time when I say start. I manage the people, physical activity and clock; do not claim to observe the room. Ask me what happened before choosing a next step.

Reference revision: 2ba8d428fc4fedb78c0b88cde2714786cecca4f8773850c7ce66cb81f207b168

# Dot Voting

Participants review a posted list of options and distribute adhesive dots to prioritize the strongest candidates. The facilitator tallies the dots to show where the group preference concentrates.

**Time:** 15 minutes. Source recommends 5 to 15 minutes for the core voting procedure.
**People:** 4 to 24. Whole group browsing and voting individually in parallel

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Rapidly identify the highest-priority items on a shared list to guide next steps.
**Use it when:** Use when narrowing a long list of brainstormed ideas, retrospective items, or proposals down to a manageable shortlist in low-to-medium-stakes situations.
**Skip it when:** Skip when decisions require complex multi-criteria evaluation, when deep power dynamics will cause bandwagon following, or when binding consensus is needed on high-stakes topics.

## Materials and tools

- Sheets of 8mm to 15mm adhesive dot stickers (3 to 5 dots per participant plus extras)
- Sticky notes, flip chart paper, or whiteboard displaying 10 to 20 candidate options
- Marker pens for recording counts
- A countdown timer

## Before participants arrive

1. Post all candidate options clearly on a wall, whiteboard, or flip chart run at eye level with at least 15 cm of clear space around each item.
2. Ensure text is legible from two meters away.
3. Decide the dot allocation per person (a standard allocation is roughly one-third the number of options, typically 3 to 5 dots).
4. Pre-cut dot sticker sheets so each participant receives their exact allocation.

## Say this to open

We are going to prioritize this list of options. Each of you will receive four sticky dots. You may place them on any option you want to advance. You can spread your dots across several items or put multiple dots on one idea if you feel strongly about it. This exercise gives us a fast visual read of our collective preferences to shape our next work, not a binding final verdict.

## How to run it

### 1. Frame the options and ground rules (3 minutes)

Deliver the opening script. Walk along the posted options and read each aloud. Clarify brief comprehension questions without opening debates on merit. Hand each person their allotted sticky dots, asking them to keep the backing intact for now.

### 2. Walk the gallery silently (3 minutes)

Direct everyone to walk silently along the wall and review all items before placing any dots. Stop anyone attempting to vote early. Ensure no lobbying or verbal campaigning takes place during this review.

### 3. Place votes (4 minutes)

Start the 4-minute timer. Invite participants to step up and attach their dots beside their chosen options. Example: if an option is 'Offer weekly drop-in office hours', stick dots in the empty margin beside that note, not over the text. Give a 1-minute warning. Call 'pencils down' or 'last dots please' when time expires.

### 4. Count dots and review patterns (5 minutes)

Tally the dots on each option with a marker pen. Read out the top three to five items by vote count. Note anomalies such as split votes between similar ideas, options with zero dots, or single items that received heavy clustering from one voter. Take two to three brief comments on whether the distribution reflects the group's practical priorities.


## Debrief questions

- Looking at the cluster of dots, which pattern surprises you most?
- Did similar options split votes in a way that masked support for a combined concept?
- What is the clearest priority to carry into our next phase?

**Finished output:** A visible, ranked shortlist of prioritized options with recorded dot counts.

## Remote

Set up a shared digital whiteboard (such as Miro, Mural, or FigJam) with each option on a digital sticky note. Give each person a specific count of virtual dot icons or use the software's built-in private voting tool. If using manual digital dots, reveal them simultaneously after everyone places them to prevent bandwagon voting. The facilitator then reads and documents the ranked scores.

## Hybrid

In-person attendees place physical dots on a central wall while a designated proxy facilitator adds corresponding virtual dots on a digital board for remote participants, or have all participants (room and remote) use the digital board on personal devices simultaneously so all votes register equally.

## Access and participation choices

- Provide a seated review sheet listing all options for anyone unable to stand at a wall.
- Allow participants who cannot place stickers to designate a partner or facilitator to stick dots for them.
- Voting is optional; participants may stick fewer dots or return unused dots without comment.

## If the session gets stuck

**Bandwagon effect occurs where early voters influence later voters by piling onto the first visible clusters.**

Enforce the silent gallery walk strictly before any dots are placed, or have people mark their choices privately on scratch paper before placing stickers.

**Two similar options split votes, causing a weaker distinct idea to win.**

Pause before tallying, ask the group if the two similar ideas represent the exact same initiative, and combine their counts if the group agrees.


## Terms used here

- Bandwagon effect: The psychological tendency for people to vote for options that already appear popular rather than choosing independently.
- Vote splitting: When two or more similar choices divide support among voters, allowing a less preferred alternative to score higher.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in WorkshopBank documentation as Dot Voting/Dotmocracy. The evidence notes that sticker multi-voting has been used by facilitators since the 1980s, with a structured variant formalized as Dotmocracy by Jason Diceman in 2004.

Retained the core multi-voting sticky dot mechanic and standard allocation guidelines (roughly one-third of options) from the source evidence. Added standardized step time allocations summing to 15 minutes, specific troubleshooting fixes, a hybrid proxy procedure, and universal design accommodations.

[WorkshopBank](https://workshopbank.com/tools/dot-voting-dotmocracy)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/dot-voting-dotmocracy-workshopbank/