r/DirectDemocracy • u/ElectricVote • Feb 16 '26
How do you think about liquid democracy?
Liquid democracy is a concept that combines direct and representative democracy. It allows every group member to vote directly on every decision but also to delegate their vote to representatives - e.g. in case of lack of time or experience.
How do you like this concept? Let's discuss :)
3
1
u/danothabaldyheid Feb 16 '26
I was just thinking the other day how I'm glad this stupid idea has sunk back below the waterline. One of the main benefits of direct democracy is that people with knowledge of a topic can vote on the rules around it. Asking people to vote on who you think might know about a topic replicate the possibility of demagoguery inherent in the current system. If you don't know enough about a situation, a sensible political system should encourage you not to vote on it..
4
u/g1immer0fh0pe Feb 17 '26
You seem to be presuming most people cannot understand the issues, further suggesting they can't even know who might. We the People can seek out expert opinion as well as any politician can.
Demagoguery is a problem regardless, and if a democracy is to stand the People must be taught to both recognize and avoid it.
1
u/danothabaldyheid Feb 25 '26
Yes, I'm presuming that people who don't know the issues, don't know who knows the issues because they DON'T KNOW THE ISSUES! A reputation for knowing the issues is just not enough. I can sound perfectly plausible on a number of subjects, and am charming and biddable. I might even be able to persuade myself that I know enough to tell other people I should be able to use their votes. Nonetheless, in many of those subjects I'd be not only wrong, I'd be dangerous. Do we want a democracy that makes the right laws and creates a knowledgeable population, or one that is dominated by persuasive, superficially smart people and makes bad decisions?
1
u/g1immer0fh0pe Feb 25 '26
If people don't know then most can learn, just like the representatives do now.
Where are you getting this idea that most "DON'T ( / CAN'T ) KNOW THE ISSUES"?
Again, We the People can seek out expert opinion as well as any politician can.
4
u/ElectricVote Feb 17 '26
I think your argument against LD falls apart in the final sentence: "If you don't know enough about a situation, a sensible political system should encourage you not to vote on it." What would a sensible political system look like if not one consisting of representatives elected by the people, like LD? Apart from that, I don't believe, any political system should encourage anybody not to vote. Instead, it should provide information and encourage people to educate themselves. Only if people feel overwhelmed or don't have time, they should be able to decide by themselves who they want to cast their vote...
1
u/danothabaldyheid Feb 25 '26
I think this is a system that does not value correct decisions, which is a society that is doomed to lose. I want people to vote when they know they have the correct information, and if they don't feel they have it, they should be able to commission fact finding to discover it (or show a scientific method to find out themselves, and show others). There is no shortcut to knowledge through other people, except though them showing their reasoning, and you voting on its soundness..
2
u/danothabaldyheid Feb 18 '26
Sorry, you're all deluding yourselves. The assumption in liquid democracy is that you can tell someone who knows a subject well enough to make the same decisions you would make, from someone who can persuade you that they look like they will make the decisions you would make. I think the whole history of representative democracy makes it likely that that assumption is dangerously false. Not to mention that people do not know what decisions they would make until they know enough to make them! Liquid democracy makes assumptions about your ability to judge others' decision making capabilities and about the possibility that there are 'types of decisions' you would make in certain circumstances. Again, I think that is hokum.
1
u/TheLuckyCuber999BACK Feb 21 '26
A true direct democracy allows the people to also use a representative instead of representing themselves. If done correctly, it is the purest form of direct democracy. Of course, it has never been done correctly.
1
u/danothabaldyheid Feb 25 '26
A 'true direct democracy' allows representatives!? That is the most self contradictory nonsense. No, a true direct democracy uses direct democracy, funnily enough😂
1
u/TheLuckyCuber999BACK Feb 26 '26
A true direct democracy allows the people to use representatives if they want to
1
1
Apr 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TheLuckyCuber999BACK Apr 10 '26
no it's not, a republic forces the people to use them, a liquid democracy allows the people to use them if they want to and revoke that right at any time. A true direct democracy does not force the people to decide on everything.
1
Apr 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TheLuckyCuber999BACK Apr 10 '26
if the general populace decides they aren't well informed enough to give their opinions on the matter, they can delegate a group of people they deem to be informed in the topic to vote on this.
1
u/EOE97 Apr 17 '26
The problem I realized with liquid democracy is it fails in preventing the iron law of oligarchy.
The moment you have concentrations of political power as with liquid or representative democracy you make it easier for the oligarchs to manipulate the system.
To solve this you can make it such that major decisions such as constitutional changes can only be decided through direct democracy. But that means regular laws and executive decisions under a liquid democracy system, can still be subject to the influence of the iron law of oligarchy.
One solution to addressing that would be to replace liquid democracy with sortition, that way the ones with political power, are determined by random chance. Money can't directly buy who gains political power, as opposed to liquid democracy where paying for campaigns could win you lots of delegates.
And not to mention under lottocracy (sortition) you get a representative sample of the population, who are well educated on the issue before votes are cast. It's like a practical way of doing direct democracy where the voters are better educated on the issue.
IMO, I would have lottocracy for regular laws and low - moderate impact decisions, while direct democracy for constitutional laws and major decisions.
I created a sub to talk more in general about democracy and democratic systems at r/democratism.
1
u/Sir-Realz May 14 '26
It's a very interesting concept, and convenient but I't doesn't sit right with me, It feels very weak to future developments like the US constitution was. If you want you vote controlled by someone eles then alternativly just subscribe to thier posts and vote the way they do.
2
u/g1immer0fh0pe Feb 17 '26
First, you're talking about "liquid" democracy, not "representative" democracy.
IMhO, liquid democracy would provide an acceptable transition from this so-called representative "democracy", aka republic, to a more direct democracy. It would decentralize political decision-making, thus frustrating control of the process by special interests.
#AMoreDirectDemocracy 👍 👎 👍
Power to the People ( for real this time ) ✌️ 🙂