Donations keep this site going. If you like what I’m doing here and think this work is important to the independence movement, consider a donation. One-off or monthly; as little or as much as you want. Click the links below, or full details are available here.
What is Liquid Democracy?
It’s a mix of direct democracy and the representative democracy we have now. It’s proxy voting or delegated voting on steroids.
Instead of voting in a national election every set number of years, we would vote on issues.
The difference with a liquid democracy is that you wouldn’t only have the choice to vote, but you would have a choice in how your vote is used.
If you’re passionate about the environment, housing or welfare, you can play a more active role in votes and debates on those subjects. On subjects you’re less interested in or unfamiliar with, you can delegate your vote to someone (or an organisation) whose opinions you trust by checking their voting record.
That sounds impractical. However, cryptographic record-keeping such as blockchain – the same technology used in cryptocurrencies – can ensure that the individual retains control over their vote. This includes being able to “take your vote back” after delegating it.
Case Studies
Liquid democracy has never been tried at any great scale, which makes it one of the more “radical” ideas when it comes to democratic innovation.
At its most basic level, the Electoral College system used to elect the US President could be considered a form of delegated voting – but this still doesn’t meet the definition of a liquid democracy.
Liquid democracy has, however, been trialled on a small scale.
The city trialled a blockchain-based voting system on a mobile app in 2018. Residents were able to vote on multiple issues, but the experiment was hampered by a low turnout.
LiquidFeedback is a software platform for policy discussion, policy ideas and voting. People using it can delegate their votes.
 Liquid democracy has been advocated by “pirate parties” around Europe and is often how they generate policies.
Liquid Democracy: Arguments For & Against
Decisions could be made using a wider pool of expertise – Instead of academics and professionals being wheeled out to give evidence to inquiries, under liquid democracy, they could actively take part in decisions. Or, they could use their expertise in a particular area to secure as many delegated votes as possible.
For example, if the discussion or decision focused on transport or health policy, people could delegate their votes to a prominent academic in transport or a senior doctor with experience in the health policy in question.
In theory, this should lead to more informed decision-making whilst widening participation. Though yes, it’s complicated and convoluted. It may also help prevent “voter fatigue” that would be encountered in a direct democracy due to the vote delegation system. People can still take part without having to do much.
Continuous feedback and flexibility – While there would be deadlines and timescales, liquid democracy would offer the chance for those taking part to offer feedback throughout the process. Those opinions may be a truer reflection of the public’s beliefs – or delivered without spin.
Governments could react more quickly to emerging situations and issues as well. For example, if there’s an urgent issue that needs addressing in a short period, they can put it out for discussion and feedback (including decision-making by experts and delegates) with a short turnaround time.
It needs stronger data protection and digital privacy laws – Liquid democracy is inherently complex and reliant on technology, especially when compared to “pen and paper”.
So while the need for stronger digital protection and privacy – to ensure a delegated vote system works smoothly and to guarantee voter secrecy – could be considered a barrier to liquid democracy, these protections would have positive impacts elsewhere. This is perhaps one of the reasons liquid democracy appeals to pirate parties (which have an ideological focus on digital rights).
Decision-making could be slower and more difficult to understand – One of the main benefits of a representative system of democracy is that the only thing we (as the public) need to do is vote; we can leave the details to those we elect. We only have to pay attention to what they’re doing if we want to.
If you (theoretically) let anyone take part – not only in the voting but in the development of policy- then there’s a risk that discussions end up going around in circles and never getting anywhere. In that respect, something like direct democracy – where everyone eligible to do so votes on a question or issue – is more practical.
Can we trust electronic voting? – A lot of the arguments would be similar as to why electronic voting hasn’t been introduced for current elections: security, privacy, cost. No voting system is perfect, but you can’t hack “pen and paper” and stuffing ballot boxes is difficult, if not impossible, in our current system.
There are circumstances where representative democracy is preferable to liquid democracy. This would include issues involving national security and foreign relations.
It might only appeal to the “hyper-engaged”, leading to the creation of a new elite – Liquid democracy could result in the creation of “super-delegates” who can outvote everyone else based solely on the number of votes that have been delegated to them by others. So while, in theory, more people would take part in general (whether by voting themselves or through delegation), fewer people take part in decision-making and debate, which is very similar to a representative democracy.
There’s also the question of what happens if a less-informed delegate receives lots of delegated votes. Some delegates might use “appeal to authority” to secure more delegated votes for a topic where they have no expertise but very strong views – for argument’s sake, an anti-vax or climate change-denying economics professor.
What Are The Alternatives?
In many cases, this is the same as sortition.
A body chosen largely at random to discuss specific issues and make recommendations on the way forward. In many ways, it’s sortition without any real “teeth” or a “focus group on steroids” but it has been trialled (to mixed success) in Wales before.
“Citizens panels” informed the McAllister-Williams Commission report on the future of democracy in Wales (The Constitutional Commission: A Soft Reboot), and one of the core recommendations was “for the public to become more actively involved in decision-making”.
Pretty straightforward. The electorate would get to vote directly on issues in referendums or trigger such a referendum. This was covered in more detail in Radical Wales: Direct Democracy).
Although not equivalent to delegated voting, switching to a voting system such as Single Transferable Vote (STV) should, in theory, produce results from a broader base.
Open elections where candidates run to secure a party’s nomination.
Primaries (as they’re known) are used in the United States and has been (unsuccessfully) trialled in England within the Conservative party.
Having candidates run against each other to secure a ballot position would weed out unsuitable candidates and, in theory, result in the “best possible candidate(s)” being elected to go up against candidates from other parties in a national or local election.
How Could Wales Introduce Liquid Democracy?
This isn’t something we could roll out overnight.
If we decide to experiment with this in the future, it’s worth piloting it on a smaller scale first before attempting to apply it to something far bigger.
This probably wouldn’t replace elected representative bodies entirely either. We would still have a Senedd etc.
Liquid democracy could: replace public consultations; trigger a discussion when enough members of the public want one (i.e. by signing a petition); occur when there’s a single issue elected politicians want detail public views on (a bit like a referendum).
There are other considerations too:
- A bespoke bilingual online platform to host the deliberations and undertake the votes.
- A team of moderators to oversee discussions.
- Clear terms and conditions for taking part.
- Some form of “digital electoral ID” (presumably based on an electoral register number) to provide additional security.
- A register of “delegates” who can be delegated other people’s votes – these profiles would need to be public and verified.
- Time limits on how long a discussion is open and a deadline for a vote to be held.
- Delegates “disappear” after a final vote on an issue or resolution (to prevent the creation of “super delegates”).
How might this work in practice?
- An issue – for argument’s sake, introducing a carbon tax to replace VAT – successfully crosses the threshold number of signatures to be considered a valid issue for discussion on the “Your Voice Wales” liquid democracy platform.
- An MS agrees to sponsor the discussion. Together with experts in the field, they draft a discussion paper which is published on the platform.
- An initial “National Conversation” on the issue is open for a set time (for argument’s sake 8 weeks) from the date of publication. Anyone with a valid digital elector ID can take part.
- The National Conversation is paused and the evidence and views gathered feed into a Senedd committee inquiry. The Committee decides to run polls on the platform to get the views on specific questions, such as (for argument’s sake) “Should meat be exempt from a carbon tax?”
- The National Conversation on the carbon tax reopens for the polls and to gather further views, which are fed back to the Senedd Committee and Welsh Government.
- The Senedd votes to hold a binding referendum (via the platform) on the introduction of a carbon tax. A vote is opened on “Your Voice Wales” and will close in 8 weeks. This vote is promoted online and in the media.
- Environmental groups, academics, pro-business groups and farming unions register as delegates. They are given profile pages (subject to Electoral Commission regulation) and are allowed to present their position. Their page has an option for electors to delegate their vote to them.
- Some electors change their minds after reports that one of the delegates has a prejudicial interest and had expressed controversial views in the past, so withdraw their delegated vote and decide to use their votes themselves.
- The vote is closed. If the vote approves the carbon tax, the Senedd would be required to act on it in the form of a Carbon Tax Bill. The Bill would be subject to the usual lawmaking procedures. They may decide to hold additional votes and polls as part of the consultation process on that Bill.
No AI tools were used to draft this post.
