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: f1b38dbfbab58014b73b6dfd3655e1996ebb2435e53dd320637262d5f6e47ce2

# Dot Voting

Participants use a limited allotment of adhesive or digital dots to prioritize a set of posted proposals. The resulting tally produces an immediate visual ranking to guide decisions and reveal overlooked ideas.

**Time:** 20 minutes. UWT suggested duration for focused prioritization; source libraries note 60 to 90 minutes when ideation and poster drafting occur in the same session.
**People:** 4 to 24. Individual voting followed by whole-room discussion

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Rank multiple proposals quickly and transparently through direct point allocation.
**Use it when:** Use when a team has already generated a list of proposals or options and needs to narrow focus down to key priorities.
**Skip it when:** Skip when decisions require formal technical analysis, when legal or budget constraints dictate the choice, or when hierarchy makes visible voting coercive.

## Materials and tools

- Pre-written proposal posters or flipchart sheets mounted on the wall
- Sheets of adhesive dot stickers (3 to 5 dots per participant)
- 1 thick black marker for tallying
- Wall-safe painter tape
- For remote/hybrid delivery: Shared digital whiteboard (such as Miro or Mural) pre-loaded with proposal cards, digital dot tokens, and internet-connected devices

## Before participants arrive

1. Mount all pre-written proposal posters at eye level with adequate spacing to avoid crowding.
2. Assign each proposal a clear identifier such as a letter or number.
3. Distribute 3 adhesive dot stickers to each in-person participant.
4. For remote or hybrid sessions, duplicate all proposals onto the digital whiteboard and place batches of 3 digital dot tokens next to each participant name.

## Say this to open

Our proposals are posted on the wall. Each of you has three dots. You may place all three on one option if you feel strongly about it, or distribute them across different options. You can also hold back some or all dots if you choose. Please cast your votes silently so everyone decides independently.

## How to run it

### 1. Introduce criteria and voting rules (3 minutes)

Explain the decision criteria, such as impact and feasibility. Read the opening script aloud. Point out the posted proposals and confirm everyone understands they may place multiple dots on a single item or choose not to spend all dots.

### 2. Cast votes simultaneously (5 minutes)

Invite participants to move along the wall and place their dots silently. Remote participants drag their digital dots onto matching cards on the virtual whiteboard. Stopping condition: all participants have returned to their seats or logged dots, or 5 minutes elapse.

### 3. Tally and rank proposals (3 minutes)

Count the dots on each proposal aloud. Write the total count in thick marker on each sheet. On a central flipchart or master board, write the top three to five highest-scoring proposals in order of vote count.

### 4. Examine priorities and outliers (9 minutes)

Facilitate a structured debrief on the ranked list. Limit whole-room comments to 4 to 5 brief contributions. Review the top proposals, then examine any proposal that received zero votes to check whether an essential requirement was overlooked.


## Debrief questions

- What patterns or surprises stand out in where the dots clustered?
- Looking at the options with zero votes, is there an essential baseline need we risk dropping?
- How well do our top three items address our primary objective?

**Finished output:** A visible tally and prioritized ranking of proposals displayed on a flipchart, identifying the top candidate actions.

## Remote

Set up a digital whiteboard with each proposal represented as a card. Provide three colored circle shapes per attendee. Run a 5-minute silent voting window where participants drag their shapes onto proposal cards. Tally the cards, sort them by count into a prioritized column, and conduct the debrief over audio.

## Hybrid

Run the shared digital whiteboard as the single source of truth displayed on the room screen. In-person participants use laptops or smartphones to place dots directly on the digital board alongside remote attendees. If in-person participants lack devices, assign an in-person proxy with a laptop who tallies physical stickers from the wall at the end of the voting window and inputs corresponding digital dots onto the board before whole-room discussion begins.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants may spend any number of dots from zero to three without explaining their decision.
- Participants with mobility or vision limits can use a paper ballot or quietly designate a proxy to place dots on their behalf.

## If the session gets stuck

**Participants bunch around one poster and copy each other's votes.**

Enforce silence during voting and remind participants to read all options before committing dots.

**Two or more proposals tie for the top rank.**

Do not force an immediate runoff vote. Keep tied items in the top tier during discussion and explore whether they complement each other or merge into one initiative.


## Terms used here

- Cumulative voting: A voting method where people receive a fixed pool of points or votes that they can concentrate on one item or spread across several.
- Zero-vote item: A proposal that received no votes during the tally, checked during reflection to ensure vital needs were not missed.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in Gamestorming and Participatory Methods. Gamestorming notes the original creator is unknown; Participatory Methods notes its application within the European Awareness Scenario Workshop (EASW) framework.

Retained the core mechanic of concurrent dot allocation with permission to place multiple dots on one item, as documented in Gamestorming and Participatory Methods. UWT expanded total duration to 20 minutes to allow adequate debrief time for groups up to 24, added explicit digital materials, clarified hybrid proxy mechanics, and structured step instructions.

[Gamestorming](https://gamestorming.com/dot-voting)

[Gamestorming](https://gamestorming.com/dot-voting/)

[Participatory Methods](https://participatorymethods.com/activities/dot-voting/)

[Participatory Methods](https://participatorymethods.com/activities/dot)

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