That is why this system has vote delegation. You can delegate an issue to someone else ...and then they in turn can delegate it to someone who knows more than them
People would gain power just by being popular. Not in the sense of "popular democracy", more like "pop music". And then, just like today, we have figureheads that battle it out based on our elected opinions.
So what's the point? It removes the friction in voting by using the web, but that opens up the whole identity thing where computers can pretend to be people or people pretend to be other people and hackers and ads and so on and so forth.
Democracy generally works well the way it works now. Eventually something happens that pisses off the public, and they fight back. Otherwise, the politicians are stuck making the choice between "crap" and "crappier". And the world works pretty well.
If you believe that generally democracy works pretty well now then I agree that it isn't a good alternative.
If you don't believe that then it is an interesting alternative. that attempts to solve some of the problems that modern democracy doesn't. Like people who think differently about different topics and want their differing opinions to matter.
People who think differently about topics eventually have their opinions recognized. There are certain things that could never happen (e.g. mandatory gun buyback will never be looked into because of the 2nd Amendment in the US, although I hear it worked well in Australia), but beyond those, eventually, good ideas tend to bubble up. For years people demanded universal healthcare in the US ("it works well in Canada!"), and the politicians fought and raged amongst themselves to decide that yes, now is the time to implement it. And it seems to work.
If you want to change your country, don't try to make a new system to supplant the existing one. Try to fix the old one. Or at least vote in it, so your voice is heard in the meantime.
Seems like a silly objection, you could also vote for a scam artist for office under the status quo and that would be much worse than delegating your vote to one. At least with delegated votes most people wouldn't choose scam artists and the odds of scam artists/idiots winning office would be much lower.
> People who think differently about topics eventually have their opinions recognized.
This is simply not true, as 18th century Poland could attest if it hadn't been wiped out by it's own governmental paralysis.
> If you want to change your country, don't try to make a new system to supplant the existing one. Try to fix the old one.
This is contradictory. One way of fixing something that's broken is with a better system that has some fundamental differences.
This problem already exists. Liquid democracy does not eliminate it, but it should lessen it for a couple of reasons, but probably most importantly because it gives people continuous control over their delegation decision. Right now the election cycles themselves exert tremendous undue influence over political outcomes, an implementation side-effect that is not an inherent property of democracy or particularly reflective of the popular will. Liquid democracy ameliorates this side-effect.
For that reason alone, it is worth serious consideration.
Pretty sure everyone would take their vote back from politicians under pressure to make the difficult calls, and vote to hang the bankers and put off interest payments.
Just exactly how many people do you believe would actually do this if they could? Do you think all of the people who trust Ice T to sing to them would actually trust him to make decisions about foreign policy?
>People would gain power just by being popular.
No, that's how things work now. With a system like this you gain power by being trusted.
>Democracy generally works well the way it works now.
Are you in favor of a corporate takeover of government?