Liquid democracy sounds... interesting. At a first read I’m not sure how well it would work. I see potential churn problems around the actual drafting of legislation, and I’m pretty sure the Nash equilibrium is just a normal party system.
All you’d need is to start a ‘voting ring’ of compatible single issue voters willing to support each other in the areas they don’t care about, and willing to boycott legislation drafted from outside the voting ring system. In the long term, the winning strategy is joining or supporting the largest possible, best whipped ring, even if it means compromising severely on your secondary interests. When whipped properly, the ring could even hold its own votes on who the ‘real’ representatives are - ideally reverting to a fixed term representative democracy, but in practice these kinds of groups tend to degenerate to a loosely coupled highly stratified social group that enables the worst possible behaviour. So id bet my money on that being the ultimate outcome.
This sort of thing happens already in the direct democracies of user governed websites (like stack overflow) so it’s not obvious to me why it wouldn’t happen here. I guess there’s nothing stopping you from voting for an independent representative (even yourself), but... that goes for today, too.
I assume the people who came up with this system have some meaningful defense against political parties and other external social structures from forming on top of it. I’m not exactly that informed about the system. This is just a first impression.
Blockchain voting though, is that a joke? You can’t gamble your country on whether a foreign adversary can find hash collisions. That means it needs to be independently auditable, both by election monitors to ensure only eligible voters are counted, and by individual voters to ensure their vote wasn’t changed. In other words, bye-bye secret ballot, hello vote-buying. You might be able to stop your neighbors from finding out your vote, but the person you sold your vote to can check your vote just as easily as you can.
I know I’d vote for Schultz for a free Frappuccino. ****in love espresso frappuccinos. They’re even better knowing how much Starbucks employees hate making them. Mmm.
Anyway, I’m all for using computers to solve social problems. Use a computer to compute the maximally fair electoral districts, use a computer to figure out the best places to put polling stations so that people have the most opportunities to vote. **** like that. Stop trying to use ****ing computers for trust. Stop trusting them, period. Computers are garbage. Trusting computers will never improve anything. Never has, never will.