Surreal illustration of a liquid democracy voting system.

Is Liquid Democracy a Real Solution? Unpacking the Pros and Cons of Delegation in Voting

Avery Sinclair in Politics & Policy June 2025 • 5 min read.

"Explore the surprising downsides of liquid democracy, and why simply trusting the 'experts' might not be the best way to make decisions."

In an era defined by political division and a longing for more inclusive and effective governance, new forms of participatory democracy are constantly being explored. Among these, liquid democracy has gained traction, particularly within tech circles and among those seeking alternatives to traditional representative systems. Liquid democracy offers a hybrid approach where voters can either vote directly on issues or delegate their votes to individuals they trust, often those with perceived expertise. This system aims to combine the broad participation of direct democracy with the efficiency and knowledge of representative democracy.

Proponents argue that liquid democracy can lead to better-informed decisions, as individuals can choose to delegate their votes to experts in specific fields. It's also seen as a way to increase civic engagement, as voters are empowered to participate directly or indirectly, depending on their interest and knowledge. However, the promise of liquid democracy isn't without its pitfalls. Recent research has begun to question whether this system always delivers on its potential, suggesting that delegation, if not carefully managed, can lead to suboptimal outcomes.

This article delves into the complexities of liquid democracy, exploring the findings of a groundbreaking study that challenges some of its core assumptions. We'll unpack the research, examining why delegation in voting can sometimes backfire and what psychological factors contribute to these unexpected results. By understanding these challenges, we can better assess the true potential and limitations of liquid democracy as a viable model for future governance.

The Liquid Democracy Dilemma: When Trusting Experts Goes Wrong

Surreal illustration of a liquid democracy voting system.

At its heart, liquid democracy seeks to improve decision-making by allowing informed individuals to influence outcomes more effectively. The idea is simple: voters can delegate their votes to those with more expertise, leading to better-informed decisions. However, a recent study, "Liquid Democracy: Two Experiments on Delegation in Voting," casts doubt on this seemingly straightforward premise. The researchers conducted experiments to compare liquid democracy to traditional majority voting and a system where voters can abstain.

The study revealed a surprising trend: delegation often led to worse outcomes than both majority voting and abstention. This counterintuitive result stemmed from a tendency toward "over-delegation," where voters delegated their votes even when their own information was valuable. This over-reliance on experts effectively reduced the amount of diverse information aggregated through the voting process, leading to less accurate decisions.

Reduced Information Diversity: Over-delegation concentrates power in the hands of a few, diminishing the collective wisdom of the crowd.
Potential for Bias: Even well-intentioned experts can have biases or blind spots, leading to skewed outcomes.
Lack of Accountability: Delegated votes can be less transparent and accountable than direct votes, potentially undermining trust in the system.

The findings highlight a critical trade-off at the core of liquid democracy: while informed voters can improve decision-making, excessive delegation can stifle the very information aggregation that makes democracy effective. Striking the right balance between informed input and broad participation is key to harnessing the potential of liquid democracy while avoiding its pitfalls.

Beyond the Lab: Considerations for Real-World Implementation

While the study raises important questions about liquid democracy, it's important to note that these findings were obtained in controlled experimental settings. Real-world implementations of liquid democracy may face additional complexities, such as varying levels of voter engagement, information asymmetry, and the potential for manipulation. However, the research provides a valuable framework for understanding the potential pitfalls of delegation and the importance of designing systems that promote informed participation and prevent over-reliance on experts. As we continue to explore new models for governance, a nuanced understanding of these challenges will be crucial to building more effective and equitable democratic systems.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.09715,

Title: Liquid Democracy. Two Experiments On Delegation In Voting

Subject: econ.gn q-fin.ec

Authors: Victoria Mooers, Joseph Campbell, Alessandra Casella, Lucas De Lara, Dilip Ravindran

Published: 19-12-2022

Everything You Need To Know

What is liquid democracy and how does it differ from traditional voting methods?

Liquid democracy is a hybrid approach to voting that combines elements of both direct and representative democracy. In this system, voters have the option to either cast their votes directly on issues or delegate their voting power to individuals they trust, often those with perceived expertise. Unlike traditional representative systems where voters elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf, liquid democracy allows for a more flexible approach, enabling voters to participate directly when they feel informed and delegate when they prefer to rely on the expertise of others.

What are the core assumptions that the study challenges about liquid democracy?

The study 'Liquid Democracy: Two Experiments on Delegation in Voting' challenges the core assumption that delegation in liquid democracy always leads to better outcomes. The study's findings suggest that delegation can lead to worse outcomes than traditional majority voting and even abstention due to over-delegation. This challenges the idea that simply empowering voters to delegate will automatically result in more informed and effective decision-making, highlighting the complexities of implementing such a system.

Why does the study suggest that delegation can lead to worse outcomes in liquid democracy, and what are the key pitfalls?

The study indicates that over-delegation can lead to worse outcomes in liquid democracy. When voters delegate their votes too readily, even when they possess valuable information themselves, it reduces the diversity of information aggregated through the voting process. Key pitfalls include reduced information diversity, where power concentrates in the hands of a few, potential for bias from experts, and a lack of accountability in delegated votes, which can undermine trust. These factors can lead to less accurate and less representative decisions.

What is the significance of 'over-delegation' in the context of liquid democracy and how does it impact decision-making?

Over-delegation in liquid democracy refers to the tendency of voters to delegate their votes even when they possess valuable information of their own. This behavior reduces the overall diversity of information available in the voting process. When too many voters delegate, the collective wisdom of the crowd diminishes, and the decisions become reliant on a smaller group of individuals. This can lead to less accurate outcomes, as the aggregation of diverse perspectives is essential for making well-informed decisions. It highlights the importance of striking a balance between informed input and broad participation.

Beyond the controlled experiments, what additional complexities might real-world implementations of liquid democracy face, and how can these challenges be addressed?

Real-world implementations of liquid democracy may encounter additional complexities not present in controlled experiments. These include varying levels of voter engagement, information asymmetry (where some voters have more access to information than others), and the potential for manipulation. To address these challenges, it's crucial to design systems that promote informed participation through education and accessible information. Transparency in delegated votes and accountability mechanisms are also important to build trust and prevent manipulation. Furthermore, the system should be designed to encourage a balance between direct voting and delegation, ensuring that both informed input and broad participation are valued.