Hi! I am glad about that. I worried a bit that I threw too many of them out. :-) Great! Maybe, or maybe not. I see here two approaches: - have a user interface where people who are interested in how everything works and how it is behaving can look into it in real-time and monitor how things are happening - so once the system is live, I think people can just learn by observing how it works - have a user interface where people who just want to make decisions, can just make them and don't have to worry about how computation is done in the background, what they worry and experience is that decisions are made better then before, and this is what counts :-) I don't see this as a bug, but a feature. This is part of democracy. It does not change the fact that popular or good talking people will have more influence in the group. But what it does change is that this influence will be explicit and not implicit. And while those people will still be able to have influence, in my opinion, other people, who maybe don't want to be exposed and are not exposing themselves, but people still trust them, will get more influence. So my look at this is, that the system is at worst as bad as what we have currently (media and people of power manipulating/influencing). But because you empower also those, who are traditionally not empowered, you improve the results. In some way it is Plato's idea of forcing philosophers to guide the group. They, if they are true to themselves, don't want this power. And through such system you allow them that they vote as they would vote just for themselves, maybe they don't even know that they have more power, but in fact they have been given trust by people. And don't forget. Delegation is active only when a person does not vote him or herself. So nobody can gather power if people don't allow that. If people allow that - isn't this democracy then? So what I hope to achieve in practice is that for mundane tasks only few people have to vote and the thing is done. Not whole community have to be involved in some simple decisions. But when something big is there, community can get naturally more involved and start casting votes personally. So you get both speed of more centralized societies for not important issues and direct democracy for more important issues, where community can decide on issue to issue basis where it wants to be on this spectrum. It does. The system is orthogonal to this. You can have rankings, or multiple choices. Yes. I am studying this as my research. What I sent was description of the way how I think voting scheme could be implemented. If you want to read more about related work, you are invited to read this report I had for one class last semester: https://github.com/mitar/theory-project In above repository there is some basic code I was using to play with idea. But I agree, what is missing is a real program people could try out. So this is what I plan to do as my next step, make a simple webportal where a group can register, define delegations and use it to compute decisions. At least the association we are planning to establish in Slovenia is centered around radical transparency, so votes and everything was meant to be public anyway. Because the real issue I don't yet have an answer to about my proposed schema is how to assure privacy of data (of votes and of the delegations themselves - such social network of delegations is highly sensitive) while keep security. For small communities like small associations this might not be big problem because mostly this is already known, who trusts who. So the system is there then just to facilitate faster and easier decision making. But yes, if it would be already done thing it would not be so interesting, wouldn't be? So, I am inviting all of you to hack also the way we are doing decision making. I am not sure if it will work, I believe it will, but of course I cannot promise you anything. This is why I wanted first to try it in our own association, to eat my own dog food. But maybe somebody else is also interested in joining for dinner. :-) Sharing is caring! Of dog food as well. :-) What I sent you was just a description of the idea. How I envision the end product you can see in this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uuQsYeWYU4-dTkuk9YKhACWZIgE5GD7rcmsLTKt… Yes! No need to theorize, hack, create a system, and let's try it! There are in the report above (links to papers). The ones I would recommend that you check out (which are open source projects with real developed code and not just theoretical concept of how it could be) are: http://liquidfeedback.org/ (used by German Pirate Party) https://adhocracy.de/ (a more user friendly version of same idea) https://www.loomio.org/ (New Zealand approach, no delegation, but nice simple interface and normal voting) A nice video about liquid democracy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0_Vhldz-8 Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m