Hey Caleb,
Dominik Schiener

I will admit, initially I was psyched when reading about the idea of liquid democracy. I, like most people, would love to see a better form of governance as we evolve into the future. The future of humanity holds some interesting challenges, one we live in the filter period, and two at the pace of technological advancement the cost of all resources consumed by a single person over an entire life could be very little, so little it could potentially be 100% subsidized by the government (socialism much?). Finding an effective governmenting style for a globalized world is very important.

I really like liquid democracy as an idea, but at scale I find it hard to conceive. We have to be pessimistic, we have to let our ideas take a few punches as good ideas need to be rejected just as much as bad ones.

I reject this idea, for now, because I am pessimistic of human nature and I have data to prove it. Voter turnout in America has been abysmally low (about 35% — 55% depending on if it’s a presidential election or not). Your responses to my first point depend on the idea that the voting public cares. That they are willing to do the minimal research required to stay informed. Also that they would pay attention to how their vote is being used. In a liquid democracy, uneducated voters can’t be ignored because their vote will always count, even if the voter is not the one counting it. The ideals associated with voting apply in any democracy, yet still a huge majority of people won’t bring themselves to exercise that power.

You make a good point that many of the problems are inherent to any democracy. Just to what extent are these demons realized in each

I like the idea of a liquid democracy, it is definitely ideal. But I’m scared of what an implementation would bring.

A single golf clap? Or a long standing ovation?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.