As we can't scale direct democracies we can think about how to create smarter representatives. Liquid democracy allows that through the vote delegation feature, so one can allow a trusted expert to speak on his/her behalf.

We'll review the underlying paradox, some theory with models and case studies, concluded by a set of tools and links.

By Max Semenchuk

The power of the democratic majority arises from the fact that every individual is assumed to be competent to guide his own life and is politically equal of every other individual. In this situation, the greatest legitimate power will always be with the majority.

But the voters might not always be knowledgeable on the matter being discussed. That is why today, many governments use a form of representative democracy, where people vote on representatives they trust who will represent them when voting on policy decisions.

Neil Davidson, The Paradox of the Middle Man

An Infrastructuralist Manifesto

The voter can decide whether to delegate her vote to a representative on a given issue or simply vote on her own. Say you’re an expert on education, wouldn’t it be great if you could have your representatives vote for you on all health care issues, but when it came down to education issues, you could cast your own vote? This is what liquid democracy attempts to do.

"Liquid Democracy is the combination of networks and democracy. It is a term designed to capture a more fluid and responsive participation of citizens in the democratic process through the use of both online and offline networks. Votes flow through networks of trusted relationships and in this way a range of types of “delegation” can be created, from forms we are familiar with such as conventional representative democracy, to fluid parties and direct democracy."

http://liquiddemocracy.org/

Towards the enhancement of e-democracy: identifying the notion of the ‘middleman paradox’ Harald Mahrer* & Robert Krimmer† (2005)

Government

Pirate Parties

Australia Flux Network

Demoex Swedish party / Direktdemokraterna

LiquidFriesland Germany

Business

Google Votes

Civicracy University

Ecosystems

Argentina Civil Platform

Industrial Workers of the World

The first question is whether a party will make the Liquid Democracy process a

The second question relates to transparency:

The third question pertains to whether liquid (or transitive) or direct votes are used

Liquid Democracy: The App That Turns Everyone into a Politician

Choice of role: Members of the democracy can either passively act as an individual or actively act as a delegate. This is different from representative democracies, which only use specific representatives. This way, delegates can be selective about their participation in different areas of policy.

Low barrier to participation: Delegates do not have much difficulty becoming delegates. Most notably, they do not have to win competitive elections that involve costly political campaigns.

Delegated authority: Delegates act in processes on behalf of themselves and of individuals who choose them as their delegate. Their power to make decisions varies based on their varying support.

Privacy of the individual: All votes by individuals are kept secret to prevent any form of coercion by delegates or other individuals.

Accountability of the delegates: In contrast to the privacy of the individuals, the formal decisions of delegates are typically made public to their voters and the broader community to hold them accountable for their actions.

Specialization by re-delegation: Delegates are able to have both general authorities delegated to them from individual voters and specialized authority re-delegated to them from other delegates to work on their behalf.

And yet adoption by political parties has yielded mixed results. The most notable case is that of the German Pirate Party.

Jan Behrens / Liquid democracy, its challenges and its forebears (2015)

Initially the Pirates made a productive use of LF for developing the program for the 2011 Berlin elections and won an unexpected 8.9% of the vote. But the unresolved question of how to verify the vote—and hence the identity of voters—became a burden not only for the Berlin chapter but also at a national level.

Even though the Pirates made several attempts to resolve the issue, they failed to reach the 2/3 super majority necessary to change the party statute and establish a permanent online assembly ("SMV") based on LF, which would have been able to make legally binding decisions.

Frustrated at the Pirates’ impasse, the four developers decided to focus on the development of the software and to leave the party in January 2011.

Since then, the four have continued to develop LF and to promote digital democracy through the Association for Interactive Democracy, which has held workshops in Burma, Pakistan, Georgia, and Colombia. In 2014, the four co-authored The Principles of LiquidFeedback, a book that details the design principles, voting theory, and political philosophy behind the software.

Was built on the principle of delegated voting. It has a lot of additional features and it was being implemented in the Pirate Party since 2009. However, being initially developed as a delegation platform, it does not provide a clear structure for presenting initiatives.

LiquidFeedback's processes work across various application fields and use-cases. These include:

Liquid Democracy: The App That Turns Everyone into a Politician / Jose Ramos

One of the best known of these tools is Adhocracy, a modular decision-making platform that allows participants to collect ideas, discuss them, and refine them in text propositions that can be further amended. This modular structure has been mostly used in civic participation projects in Berlin, but also in political parties such as the Green Party, the SPD, and institutional contexts such at the German Federal Parliament.

It's built on the example of a discussion board. Suggestions, changes and comments are clearly distinguished. Delegation appears in the later version in 2010.

Adhocracy has been used for a range of different projects, including meinBerlin, an e-participation platform for residents of Berlin to participate in decisions about urban planning in the city.

✅ Built for Ethereum using Web3.

✅ Implements Graph Protocol to read blockchain.

✅ Explore MolochDAO compatible contracts.

✅ Deployable on IPFS.

✅ Supports ERC20 and ERC721 tokens.

✅ Mobile & desktop responsive UX.

Liquid democracy seems to be at the early stages of development. There are some community, authors, and tools which inspire some trust. Previous experience shows the technology doesn't work without proper culture (which is hard to reproduce). The promise is great though and sparks the interest for further research.

as

#dgov foundation Researcher & Community manager

We have an ID app called Diia, in about a year it should allow direct voting from any place. I'd love to see the delegations feature there. Though probably for non-binding and prioritizing features and being ready for a low turnout initially.

Many other jurisdictions are playing now with advanced tools, I believe it was tried already on a small scale, though there's a lack of strong cases for implementation. And the test costs should be justified for the taxpayers. Maybe more progress can be achieved in the private-public cooperations.

as

Ministry of Digitalization of Ukraine Expert, Virtual Assets

Most tools look very usable visually. Concerning is the how to set a habit of voting / checking delegates. There're already some tools that support political alignment, even with some form of gamification. Though the effect could be short-term and the app can be easily forgotten in the daily race. It could be somehow integrated with the existent communication tools that are already used (like in Google case).

as

Solution Designer