Liquid Democracy In Simple Terms

[@GuyusSeralius]

It's an exciting possibility! I had discussed this very concept of online voting with my political science professor, roughly 12 years ago, though I wasn't familiar with the term, liquid democracy. He really liked the idea of online voting to more directly influence legislation. He was approaching his 80s, so I hope he is still alive if the concept is ever implemented on a national and global scale. It would really help to empower the people. It's a nice thought.

[@jmiehau]

On the Ethereum Virtual Machine you can create contracts for a Liquid Democracy

[@AnchoviePossum]

please elaborate

[@specimen-ch7zi]

@@AnchoviePossum I think he means you can code smart contracts for this.

[@wcuribe]

A complex issue turn into an easy to understand video, thanks :)

[@directdemocracyparty5106]

Want to get more involved? Design the proposal for the Party Platform? www.reddit.com/r/directdemocracyparty

[@bjb2738]

+1 for correct use of "WWW".

[@PatrickCurl]

I'm actually working w/ a team to implement this inside a new political party. In essence a party where the people who run aren't elected so much as volunteer to be potential 'delegates' for their locale -- and let the party members in their area control the votes they make in congress, or local government. Instead of using money to finance campaigns - we will promote the anti-party-party -- to get an idea of who fits best as an area's rep or senator -- people might fill out questionaires, and get can opt in to run or just be a voter -- if you're a 'runner' -- then if you have the most matches to the most people collectively via some sort of scoring alogrithm, then you're -it no vote, no primary, no tv commercials, no running, no wasted effort/money. -- We will then put out some money as a party when it comes time to run against main-stream parties. - The idea is this : Two party system is corrupt, doesn't work -- it's a complete sham -- getting rid of it is impossible w/out another Revolutionary war, -- the other option -- create a new super huge anti-party party that attracts dems/reps that are fed up w/ their own party. -- All while introducing people to delgative/liquid democracy, and when the party gets super-seated in Washington -- begin to find a way to move from being a platform just for the party, but for American politics in general - possibly even starting over from scratch w/ a new continental congress and constitution -- one for the technological age (seriously a LOT has changed since 1780's).

[@PatrickCurl]

There will be, we're going to be running an indiegogo campaign, goal create a party where all issues are voted on inside the party, and pushed to our politicians to deliver to congress.. i think liquid democracy in usa has to start witha new party that has no standard platform but goes with what the people want, then get party supporters in leadership roles and eventually we can reform the whole political process.

[@b41984]

how about about running this system on a redit type of framework ? with subredits for different branches of the government you get up down votes pictue upload comments and more with this framework and more functionality can tacked on if need be such as mirco payment system in bitcoin... the skys the limit or rather the sky is no limit

[@directdemocracyparty5106]

***** b41984 ***** Everyone, This is kind of creepy. I have been working on the exact same thing, and as result of the incredibly positive and valuable feedback we got from reddit in our first few days, opened up a sub to start the discourse. I see you had this conversation a year ago!! I never made it this far down into the comments before or I would have gotten in touch earlier. I think this means we must really be on to something. Please stop on by www.reddit.com/r/directdemocracyparty

[@kuunda8363]

I think I actually really like this.

[@tapion12345]

I've published your great video with italian subs. There is yet some work to do but i've already started to share it. You've done a great job, thanks.

[@C_R_O_M________]

I really liked the concepts presented and the way it was done...a feasible alternative indeed...I consider it a step forward even from the Swiss system...cheers from Athens Greece...

[@ivandaraktchiev1460]

This is a simplistic representation of what I wrote in a book published in 2010, and several papers after that. The relevant chapters and all the relevant papers are published in independent.academia.edu/IvanDaraktchiev. Based on that theoretical platform, the Dissident Movement ZAEDNO (Bulgarian for TOGETHER) sprang up in 2010. Our site, www.zaedno.mobi features many documents, most importantly, the Program which lays out the way for transformation from Representative to Direct Democracy in the specific case of Bulgaria. Obviously, we are denied access to the mass media.

[@dawuddude]

Don't think, just share this. We need this to get implemented and we need more people on board.

[@RogerStone]

Interesting system. We certainly need a way to involve people more. Recent events (e.g. UK referendum on EU membership, US nominations for the presidential election) highlight how many feel ignored by current politics. Any reform also needs much better ways of informing us, as impartially as possible, about the implications of decisions so that we can make good choices

[@neo00779]

thank you for making this video! i will share it with lots of people :D we have to get this idea out there!

[@alexcoopergmail1486]

Liquid Democracy (or Direct Democracy) won't just happen because some people think it's a good idea. It will have to be demanded, fought for, negotiated. Many people can see the short-comings of representative democracy where our representatives have to toe the party line. Party policy is massively influenced by outside forces and lobbyists. However, that kind of democracy is JUST about good enough to keep people off the streets to demand better. I believe that the interim stage between representative democracy and more direct/liquid democracy is ONLINE CONSENSUS. That's what I'm working on at ONEVOICE DIRECT OneVoice.Direct is not just about online expression. It's not necessarily about protesting or petitions. Rather it's about participation in a DECISION MAKING PROCESS where you vote FOR new ideas, not for parties or people. Each stage eliminates the less favoured ideas, until you get a head to head between 2 proposals. Even the winning proposal does not necessarily get adopted. You need sufficient consensus from the minority to achieve a pre-set super-majority. Only then can the group come close to speaking with one voice. I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY ... online consensus will have enough influence to achieve real change. Right now though I am literally one voice: developing the revolution in my spare room. Would anyone care to follow me so that I can call myself a leader? (Think Danny Wallace, Join Me) OneVoice.Direct

[@directdemocracyparty5106]

Hi Alex. Love that you are working in the same space. Reach out if you ever want to chat, or hop on our sub at reddit.com/r/directdemocracyparty

[@chrisdavie8163]

Guessing it didn't work out in the end judging by the link?

[@havenbastion]

I had this idea for a long time but i just thought of giving each person 100 votes which they could then delegate or vote as they see fit.

[@petercharles8799]

Liquid democracy looks like a disguised form of direct democracy, but instead of voters be required to vote on everything they can instead temporarily delegate responsibility to somebody else. This will see a much more fluid political scene, not unlike what we see on social media today, in which individuals quickly come to prominence on one issue and then quickly fade away. It also lacks any mechanism for limiting demagogues. The most crucial lesson from Athenian democracy is that demagogues can quickly sway the populace on an issue and then vanish as soon as their ideas have inflicted damage on the populace, and liquid democracy would suffer from the same problem. The final criticism I have is that liquid democracy does not provide for local representatives, a crucial part in a representative democracy, who play an important role in helping their constituents and advocating for them in government.

[@NoctumTuber]

Great video! Can I translate it in other languages?

[@UnitedDiversity]

Some quotes for Sayke, the chap who coined the phrase: “Other systems similar to LD have been designed, but as far as I know they employ vote proxying, rather then answer recommendation”

[@jacobtop]

I believe that's explained pretty well at 3:16 in the video...

[@tchoco]

Excellent. Very interesting. Will elliminate lots of problem with current systems. Sometimes I vote for a party because I like the economic policy of a party, but then I don 't agree with like say immigration policy. With liquid democracy you seem to be able to vote excactly for what you want. Also power of lobbies is reduced with liquid democracy... i think.

[@shnglbot]

I support this! It's a way better alternative to our current political system, which wrongly gets called democracy.

[@UnitedDiversity]

“I’d just like to stress the difference between vote proxying and vote recommendation. one’s “pull” and the others “push”, and that’s a big part of what makes liquid democracy unique. With liquid democracy, people can request recommendations from multiple people, and from there they can do all kinds of things - take the average, ignore some recommendations, ignore all the recommendations and vote their unique conscience, etc. with proxying, you cant do that, and thats why proxying isn’t enough“

[@AwarenessCorp]

Clear, simple, revolutionary, very well explained. Is Liquid Democracy your idea?

[@ericboby7781]

Recently interviewed someone who is trying to implement this system. Check it out if you guys are interested : kzbin.info/www/bejne/hHiviZSJebRmZ80 He talks more about the good things and bad things that come with this system, and the strategy he's taking to make it happen in the best way possible. Curious to hear what you guys think...

[@pokerpaddy]

Good video. Well done. Solid concept.

[@paul1964uk]

It seems to me that a weakness of this idea is the voter, once he gives his vote to any other person, has no subsequent control of how his vote is 'passed around'. In other words, you give your support to a 'pacifist' and, by a series of subsequent allocations it could very well end up in the control (albeit temporary) of a 'warmonger'. What is ideally required is that each time a 'representative' chose to pass all the votes in his control to another representative that he first 'ask' the permission of each and every person whose vote he is currently holding. At the very least, the ordinary voter should receive a notification that his vote had been reallocated, giving the new recipient's name and contact info. and therefore permitted to review the new allocation immediately. I suspect the latter is possible.

[@rulamdavid]

its already stated in the video that if you dont agree with your delegate's vote, you can rescind the vote and vote yourself on that particular issue.

[@directdemocracyparty5106]

Hi Paul, Technically speaking -- It would be rather easy to notify the voter and highlight which issues got updated on the voting portal. I would love to have you over at our sub, as we develop our proposal and try to educate more people. www.reddit.com/r/directdemocracyparty

[@directdemocracyparty5106]

David Lam I think he is specifically concerned that they original voter won't really find out? But this would be technically easy.

[@ErikBramsen]

+Paul Miller *It seems to me that a weakness of this idea is the voter, once he gives his vote to any other person, has no subsequent control of how his vote is 'passed around'.* The voter can revoke the license to vote on his behalf at any given moment.

[@pauldilley8974]

From my understanding, under this system you can remove your vote from wherever it ended up down the chain of people and reassign it anywhere into any other chain of people you like.

[@adelgado1313]

AFAIK, the social construct called Agora was the original meaning of the translation Forum.

[@sztellanora]

Sounds great, there is just one problem though; electronic voting can be hacked, just like banking systems. Only direct democracy truly (and reliably) works, and we can achieve it through decentralizing economies; there is no technical obstacle in the way of making every city self-reliant (recycling facilities, renewable energy plants, industrial complex, traditional and vertical aquaponic farms, etc.).

[@Auceza]

sztellanora You could combine Liquid Democracy also with non-electronic election-systems.

[@sztellanora]

Auceza You could, but that would result in an administrative nightmare. Elections and referendums result in a huge logistic task already; it is no surprise that we result to representative voting. Non-electronic voting is cumbersome, wasteful and inefficient, while electronic voting is unreliable. Quite a standoff. I have heard about "zero-knowledge proof", which is said to be impossible to be hacked, but I'm skeptical. Note: I'm no expert in IT.. it might just work, however, I'm not really convinced yet.

[@WaldirPimenta]

sztellanora absolute decentralization prevents us from taking advantage of economies of scale, making us more inefficient and wasteful. A fractal system like this works much better, taking advantage of global as well as local coordination, whichever is more beneficial. If the only objection to liquid democracy is potential technical flaws, then I'm sure they can be dealt with using proper cryptographic tools and open protocols. Think about public key cryptography, the DNS, bitcoin's blockchain, git, bittorrent+DHT/PEX, and so on. We _do_ have the tools and the expertise to make it happen -- we only need the will :)

[@sztellanora]

"absolute decentralization prevents us from taking advantage of economies of scale, making us more inefficient and wasteful." Economies of scale only makes sense in monetary capitalism, but not in a Resource-Based Economy ;) Efficiency itself means the rate of waste, and waste heat, and it is not directly influenced by the scale of production, but more by the production method itself. An example: traditional subtraction-based production methods using economies of scale are much more wasteful than 3D printing. "A fractal system like this works much better, taking advantage of global as well as local coordination, whichever is more beneficial." Care to elaborate? "If the only objection to liquid democracy is potential technical flaws, then I'm sure they can be dealt with using proper cryptographic tools and open protocols." Maybe, but decentralizing economy, and eliminating the profit structure would dramatically reduce the motivation to even cheat on an election. "Think about public key cryptography, the DNS, bitcoin's blockchain, git, bittorrent+DHT/PEX, and so on. We do have the tools and the expertise to make it happen -- we only need the will :)" It might work, but dont forget that most people are incapable of thinking in big systems, so even if perfect democracy would be possible, they would most likely be unable to make the decisions that allow for a humane, sustainable socio-economic system without sustainability and efficiency protocols integrated into the economic system. The point is that we can, and should employ the scientific method to arrive at the optimal decisions instead of making them with the aggregate of our imperfect human minds, without even the necessary information input. It is impossible that everyone knows the state of all the resources, environmental and social issues, and also capable of perfect logic and critical thinking. This is why democracy should be reserved for minor local issues, and complex ones should be delegated to the IoT, with the necessary computing power, sensory feedback, and sustainability protocols. Think about it ;)

[@WaldirPimenta]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. To use the words of an unforgettable cinema icon, allow me to retort: (1) I don't see why mass production would necessarily be more wasteful than fully decentralized, local production, quite the contrary: by reducing the need to develop the same structures everywhere, we can focus on increasing each larger node's throughput, and improving clean, efficient transportation & distribution systems to connect their produce with where it's needed. In programming we call this DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself). This is basically the logic behind division of labor, whose benefits I won't enumerate, except that now we don't need humans adopting a limiting life-long profession to implement that -- instead, machines take their place as hyper-specialized nodes in the economy. An economy of scale, at its core, describes the effects of the threshold in any production curve, beyond which a larger structure pays off its cost of construction and maintenance due to increased throughput (and I'm not speaking of money or profit, just in terms of balance of resources and time, really). It is thus a general phenomenon, and not restricted to any specific method of production. (2) yes, I mean that a "fractal" system, where small networks join in larger networks and coordinate not due to central planning but due to the rules embedded into the system's structure, allows both the large networks and the small networks to coordinate without one encumbering the other. In the case of liquid democracy, this means that direct 1-to-1 (person-to-policy) voting is possible when preferred, but mass representation remains viable when desirable, e.g. when an individual holds the trust of many others in a specific matter, and he can then debate the issue with people representing other large constituencies, allowing Athenian-style discussion where massive many-to-many debate or vote-based decisions rather than discussion-and-consensus would produce sub-optimal results or no results at all. I.e. the system is scalable, and works both in the small scale and in the large scale. Full decentralization forgoes the large-scale coordination aspect. (3) "Maybe, but decentralizing economy, and eliminating the profit structure would dramatically reduce the motivation to even cheat on an election." --> I definitely agree, and these are certainly goals that can be pursued in parallel: one thing does not preclude the other. By the way, IMHO implementing a liquid democracy system is clearly more achievable in the current political/cultural framework, and would make further logical changes easier to achieve. (4) "It might work, but dont forget that most people are incapable of thinking in big systems, so even if perfect democracy would be possible, they would most likely be unable to make the decisions that allow for a humane, sustainable socio-economic system without sustainability and efficiency protocols integrated into the economic system." --> That's the beauty of well-implemented protocols/structures! See for example how hard it is for politicians to change things about how the Internet works right now. Because it is a public, standard protocol, based on a decentralized network, it's very resilient to central planning unless most involved parties are at agreement. Even when they do get to enact laws to get their way forward, there are always alternatives that people can use to workaround the restrictions. Because it was built in a technically sound structure. Same for e.g. BitTorrent, where it's hard for peers not to seed at the same time as they're leeching -- the whole protocol is built around this notion. So certainly a political decision-making system can be made to be resilient to local misguided decisions. Besides, the very principle of liquid democracy resides in the ability of people to simply delegate their decisions when they don't care about the result. Think about it: if a given strategy is actually bad, it certainly will cause grief to more people than a good strategy that is opposed only in principle. So those people who are actually bothered in their daily lives, will make sure to either vote themselves on that issue, or carefully choose their representative. In the end, it's not a perfect system, but it certainly allows those who endure real suffering under bad systems to have their voice heard and help change the balance in decision-making. All this without limiting the ability of large-scale coordination to happen, which is the case in a fully decentralized system. (5) "The point is that we can, and should employ the scientific method to arrive at the optimal decisions instead of making them with the aggregate of our imperfect human minds" --> again, totally agreed -- I just happen to see liquid democracy as a good way to start changing the system of public decision-making, to allow better ideas to enter the field of public discourse. Otherwise, we can talk as much as we want about how great a society we could have, but we'd have a hard time actually making it happen.

[@leezaaloo]

so simple and so righteous, yet so unreal to ever happen :/

[@finald1316]

What if there is delegation loop? How would you solve this? If this must be fixed on a posterior phase then voters might loose anonimity... if you force everyone to revote you may get loops indefinetely. How do we fix delegation loops in a liquid democracy?

[@simeonpetev]

The biggest issue I see with liquid democracy is that many people will be tempted to get a profit by selling their vote for money to someone. Or if they don't want to sell it, they could be forced by some organizations to vote for them. In Bulgaria, on each election, despite that it is illegal, many people from the minorities sell their votes or are being forced to vote for some parties. For example, if they don't do so, their employer threatens to fire them. In my opinion, the only democracy which would work is the direct democracy.

[@OwenIverson]

if you could ensure that the majority would actually produce the policy being discussed, this would be revolutionary. alas, i don't think the people with money (top politicians, business gurus and law makers) will ever let it happen.

[@chrisdavie8163]

Hence you need a political party to put it into place. That is the only way.

[@447GHT]

why not just ditch the people altogether and go with Alistair Reynolds' "Demarchy" model; you periodically perticipate in policy decisions or take a detailed survey online and an algorithm basically votes for you based on the choices you made?

[@miguelbubo]

if you want I can do a portuguese translation. is there any? sould I send you the voice files and subtitles? Thanks man! great great video! great idea!!

[@loganmilliken2727]

What a horribly complicated system no one would ever support this! Its too complicated! I don't know how to tie my shoes! Somebody help me! I can't tie them... Its too... complicated... *Dies from tripping*

[@2kavadias]

Regardless of the actual idea of "liquid democracy" as a system of delegating proposals on an issue and not delegating votes, as presented here, both approaches have a serious handicap, which makes the word democracy irrelevant to ( for) their function. The source of democracy is in open, transparent, public discussion of issues. Selecting from a group of answers or proposals, or (worse) from a group of votes, falls far short of the essence of a primary institutional role of broad public *decision-making*, which is democracy. This is one reason why there is no "indirect democracy". The democratic process has an educational role. "Liquid" approaches tend, at best, to downgrade it to an information-processing procedure.

[@kylehampton7693]

Id love to read/watch more about this part if it. You have any links?

[@vladanlausevic1733]

Jakob, are you still working with ideas of liquid democracy?

[@UnitedDiversity]

He doesn’t spell it out, but vote recommendations help to keep power at the edges where it belongs, and makes it harder for people to become too influential.

[@G33KN3rd]

Realistically, the problem with Direct Democracy was that the politician who promises the most stuff will gain power; he doesn't even have to fulfill all of his promises as long as he fulfills some of them. The problem with liquid democracy is that the average Joe Doaks is either not aware or not interested in stuff like foreign policy and trade. Politics can be very dirty and having people who are too naive about this taking part in the system is not going to end well. The problem with Representative Democracy is that we've invariably created a system where you need money to be able to get into politics, which has resulted in Cronyism and Corporatism. In history, the most successful countries were more so Oligarchies but these Oligarchies, more or less, actually gave a shit about the country, not their corporate backers. I think liquid democracy can definitely work but it should be filtered from people who aren't political.

[@chrisdavie8163]

Well the people who aren't political will either not vote at all or delegate their vote to someone as people do today with a political party, but on a much worse scale and timeframe previously.

[@simo9445tsns]

Nice

[@ThomasBomb45]

Online voting is a very bad idea. It requires that hardware and software will not be compromised, that cryptographic keys will not be stolen, that server administrators won't be able to change the outcome, etc. And I don't know of a feasible way for everyone to vote if we exclude online voting.

[@directdemocracyparty5106]

Great concern. This is one of many that was brought up during our AMA. www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2xm1l6/i_am_andrew_warshaver_internationally_recognized/ The short answer is, we propose a fully auditable, public voter record with anonymized ids to maintain vote privacy.

[@pauldilley8974]

We build a really massive hill and require everyone to visit monthly. :P

[@NoctumTuber]

I mean like send you an .srt file and then you embed it in this video, so over time users can see this video and select their prefered language. Is that possible?

[@KimMoth]

See Clay Shirky on the Internet and government: Clay Shirky: How the Internet will (one day) transform government

[@JethroGillgren77]

For anyone interested, we have the Pros and Cons of Liquid Democracy debated on Kialo here: www.kialo.com/could-liquid-democracy-be-a-better-system-7865/

[@Licitari]

I thought it was called The Pnyx (?) :)

[@UnitedDiversity]

This video starts going off course around 3:30. Liquid Democracy is NOT and should not be considered the same thing as Delegative Democracy. As originally conceived it is about Vote Recommdentations.

[@nesscube]

what you do not understand in "delegate their vocies" ?

[@Licitari]

How can people trust online voting really(?) And with the many political issues being decided on each day ... what person has the time to stay informed and vote every day (?) Won't it make people kind of numb in the end...

[@chrisdavie8163]

That's why you get the choice to delegate your vote to someone else.

[@russellwest8767]

being able to delegate your vote on issues where you are ill informed makes being ill informed a self fulfilling prophecy for the majority of the public, and no one will have any incentive to make people more informed. Since votes are similar to currency here, I predict the emergence of "vote entrepreneurs" who invest all of their time in making sure people delegate their votes as often as possible, and who use this new vote trade to accumulate votes rather than getting votes because of charisma or expertise.

[@JozefTrubac]

well this is basically saying that most people are ignorant and stupid. Ok but these same ignorant and stupid people are voting today for parties. Of course you will always have stupid people. But in this system you at least give a voice to rational people. Which is not the case today

[@directdemocracyparty5106]

I disagree. A good percent of our country gets actively involved in demonstrations, and petitions -- even though these events rarely lead to Congress actually listening to us. I believe the single most important thing, under the new delegate platforms, is going to be transparency -- and how they are going to provide that. Because corruption is guiding policy right now, that is at the fore in most of our minds. Read more, or AMA at www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2xm1l6/i_am_andrew_warshaver_internationally_recognized/

[@directdemocracyparty5106]

***** Sounds like I don't have to convince you. Would you like to join our sub and get involved in shaping the future of our platform? reddit.com/r/directdemocracyparty

[@ErikBramsen]

+Russell West no one will have any incentive to make people more informed. I disagree with that. Suppose you have, say, 25% of the parliamentary seats, the rest being divided evenly between two traditional parties or party blocks. Then, any government would have to woo your members for their votes, arguing their policy on a case-by-case basis, instead of just promising everyone a free pony every four years. This in itself, would generate a public conversation about the policies and when people can actually influence the outcome directly, they will be more inclined to take an interest.

[@MillionthUsername]

It's interesting as a voting system. There are many ways to devise voting systems. But the fundamental question is what do people have the right to vote on - and who decides? If this is implemented under present political systems, majorities could easily and swiftly vote away the wealth and property of minorities, or otherwise diminish their rights. How would such a calamity be prevented? In other words, who watches the watchers? Who controls the controllers? Just because the government or state is now literally the people, does that make voting ethical? How can minorities be protected against the tyranny of the majority?

[@NerdSnipingBatman]

That is a problem that has yet to be solved in our current system as well.

[@MillionthUsername]

***** Not bad. I have proposed some sort of "Congress of the States" which would be the last line of defense regarding constitutionality of laws, regulations, and court decisions. That is one weakness within the US system - that the people do not have a veto over the entrenched political system. The idea of a constitution limiting gov't power is good, but in practice there is not a good way to enforce it.

[@pauldilley8974]

Presumably under the proposed system in the video, politicians would still be the ones that develop laws, it's just that citizens approve/reject them. I'm assuming that which laws reach the Citizen Vote and which don't would be a democratic matter within the House (congress, parliament, bundestag, etc). I'm assuming also that there would be some method of creating and forcing through a Citizen's Bill, but that it should be appropriately difficult enough such that groups of people aren't able to force through stupid ideas.

[@robertjarman3703]

If we continue the model of the state (which I reject, but let's go with it for the hypothetical), you can use a commission appointed on the basis of impartiality to create courts. Juries are also useful, as a random selection voting by supermajority, potentially with some kind of minority quotas. You can also create certain rights that can't be amended normally, perhaps requiring a 2/3 majority and a majority vote in some regionalist system or can't be repealed at all, like civil rights and civil liberties. Germany's constitution mandates that many basic rights cannot be amended away under any circumstances. Plus, this model only chooses the legislation, it does not necessarily implement its own rules. Civil servants are chosen by competitive exams, and could be hired by a random selection of their coworkers so as to ensure that this is independent from popular votes. If you were to organize a system without the state, then the organizations that make these decisions are not things that you must join, you might go on your own or find a parallel cooperative or commune to join.

[@donha475]

Democracy is intrinsically flawed and immoral (unless you can "hardfork" / go your own way and split the community at any time. But that's just the free market and you vote with your $ and can change your mind at any time. No voter fraud in free markets either. It's money!

[@chrisdavie8163]

In Britain, the idea that a representative MP can represent all of it's constituents is just a joke. Only the individual can represent itself politically either by voting alone or delegating the vote and retracting it whenever. That is democracy.

[@spj771]

Technically the people could just create this and the current governments could do jack about it. If there was enough of the people, and we had a wifi not connected to the grid. Interesting very interesting.

Some ideas on Liquid Democracy: www.reddit.com/r/liquiddemocracy/

[@directdemocracyparty5106]

I'm working on some more!! Help me organize my thoughts at www.reddit.com/r/directdemocracyparty

[@ricovmader]

#politica "Democracia Líquida" será esse um dos caminhos a seguir? buff.ly/NDraLx #mudar é preciso #changebrasil

[@gloverelaxis]

we need this AND to abolish capitalism to achieve real democracy

[@raz8752]

Very true

[@chrisdavie8163]

You would never get a majority vote to abolish capitalism. Capitalism would need to cause mass poverty, hunger and death before people would vote against it. Unfortunately, all the forms of socialism/communism that have been recorded in our history actually did cause mass poverty, hunger and death and therefore people wouldn't vote for that.

[@radioreactivity3561]

@@chrisdavie8163 "all the forms of socialism/communism that have been recorded in our history." That's not true, social-capitalism actually works pretty well in Germany and Nordic countries.

[@2kavadias]

Trying to contribute to a diversified society... Looks like well intended. But, there is no such thing as "indirect democracy," other than as an oxymoron. Representation is not democracy (period). And, people who want "representatives" to make the decisions, usually do not want direct participation of citizens to decisions. Usually, they want interest-group lobbying to formulate the agenda of public issues. It is not a compromise, for some purpose, that votes for MPs cannot go to multiple parties and the resulting lack of representation; there is no need for "stable governments" and, thus, mixing the legislative body elected (every 4-5 years) with the executive leg of government.

[@OXPO94]

They can delegate their vote to someone they trust or a politician. But If you ask me, a uneducated or uninterested person should stay away from politics until she gets a better understanding of the problems(by her own choice of course). The way to solve this is to make sure everyone is educated enough to have an informed opinion. Education is the solution to all problems.

[@frankman2]

yes ... and no.... I suggest you take account for sheer greed. Take for example the military-industrial complex. They are highly educated people of all levels working there. But when they wave wads of dollars at them... well.... you know. So the only way to counter this is to put the people on the receiveing end of the missiles on the podium and speak about how the "beautiful weapons" killed their family.

[@MrRtkwe]

It's an interesting system but there are a couple major problems with it. A) Inclusion. A large number of people even in the US don't have access to the internet in their home or a computer. B) Properly securing this system is a nightmare, you're taking voting machines (already really difficult to secure when they're not in everyone's home being used daily for 100 other tasks) and putting them in everyone's home and they're being used or every day tasks.

[@lucaslevinsky8802]

I will drink it

[@andersmichael7220]

hope real democracy happens one day. but on a imperialistic foundation - unlikely.

[@ahrraminsun8162]

Don't you think it's better if people vote with their own resources? If there is democracy by voting instead of resources, then the only way for the votes to be meaningful is for some people to take the resources from other people. If this happens by a group of people voluntarily coming together and pledging their resources to this liquid democracy then that's fine, but in that case they are voting with their resources to have liquid democracy, and could vote with their remaining resource, their body, to exit the liquid democracy. If this liquid democracy is imposed on people then the vote is only meaningful if the imposer will forcefully take resources from some people and give them to other people based on the voting results. I think it's better if people can choose to opt-in with their resources. Human wants are infinite yet resources are finite; voting and spending are ways finite resources may be allocated. One only allows people to allocate the resources they already possess, which may lead to more direct feedback for learning, and greater caution, etc... and I think is kind of more fair.

[@NewPhilosopher]

People in a voluntary Anarchist society (as opposed to the anarchy that comes about as a result of governmental collapse) or a Libertarian society would still be involved in organised groups. Indeed, these groups may be a part of a federation. This voting system could be used or adapted for such scenarios. Unless you live in such an oppressive nation that it forbids people emigrating elsewhere, or you live in a nation from which no others will accept immigrants from, or ALL nations "forcefully" reallocate resources, then if you don't like having your resources "forcefully" reallocated, you are free to leave. Just because you don't like other laws, customs, or culture in the nations that won't reallocate your resources "forcefully", or if you lack the resources to move doesn't mean you don't have a choice. It's just like if you have few marketable skills your options are limited in what jobs you can take to survive. By remaining in a country that has taxes and other methods of resource redistribution, it means you agree to the social contract. It is no more forceful than signing up to a service where you agree to have an amount of money deducted on a regular basis. A better analogy might be a service that you are signed up to by default, but that you can opt out from if you so wish. By continuing to use the service and not moving to a different service, you agree to the fees and charges that service might impose. You may not be happy with any of the options open to you, but you are still free to choose from those options.

[@tomassikula7396]

check VotingTree on facebook

[@MichaelMooring]

Loomio ! :D

[@ledinbrw]

Direktdemokrati

[@TomekSamcik69]

We could delegate our votes to popular youtubers and their mums and build youtubocracy around that

[@FabioTanaka]

I only disagree on delegate cse it makes another inderect democracy. We need democracy by it's self, of course that politicians voting according direct democracy would be nice for a transition from inderect to direct democracy. Check konsento.org Direct democracy system open source, join the cause! Democracy by its meaning!

[@chrisdavie8163]

Surely it's better for people to have the choice to either delegate or vote on one's self?

[@Baamthe25th]

This is basically the idea that internet will solve our problems, and it acts like problems in our societies are all caused by lack of representation. Electing a new guy won't solve unenployement now, it wouldn't eitheir in this In reality, online voting is a terrible idea, because how insecure and shady it is (unlike physical ballot that you can check, even years after). Also, wikipedia is taken as an example but it's not the "everyone can edit" website that is advertised. In the end, there are a few very dedicated people that decide what's in or what's not. (Don't take my word for it,go try to edit a big wikipedia article) * Thirdly, even in such a system, people will be people. Differing values, differing priorities will lead to polarization. Lazyness, procrastination, "my vote won't change stuff" will plague the system.

[@unity20000]

Easily exploitable. Still delegates decisions. The only solution can be direct democracy. We have the tools for it now with internet and many examples of collaboration projects.

[@directdemocracyparty5106]

The trouble, unity20000, is that some issues are extremely complex. Tax code, for instance. Come join us at www.reddit.com/r/directdemocracyparty to learn more.

[@chrisdavie8163]

People have the choice though. That's important.

[@skullsNstuds]

I definitely like the system and the ideas behind it. But this video is one of the most gender insensitive tool I've seen on a political related matter! Seriously, men and ties all the way?!? We should question ourselves on how we present things and ideas related to the public space, including through images and symbols. A word to the wise!

[@Mato42]

+Spleen Des Fleurs Have you ever seen a woman wearing a tie? Seriously, google it, there are many photos on the internet. So, maybe you are insensitive, because you are assuming that a woman cannot wear a tie.

[@chrisdavie8163]

Here we go....down the slippery slope into woke-ism five years earlier.