Liberum Consilium: a system design for moderated deliberation [pdf]

I skimmed it. One thing that caught my attention is the so-called "RA":

    Prior to voting, voters must communicate their intent
    to participate with a Registration Authority (RA).

Nowhere is it discussed what exactly is the RA, who is part of it etc. Moderators are supposedly "randomly" chosen and given a random amount of time to do their job, but

    Reputation influences moderator selection. Relatively high
    positive reputation increases the odds of selection while
    negative reputation decreases it. This positive contributor
    bias aims to contain the influence of special interest groups.

That's not random and leaves space to game the system. I think giving more moderating time to higher rep would be better than choosing moderators from a small pool of users.

That's another attempt to fix the "representative democracy" crisis.

Unfortunately I saw nothing about "Liquid Democracy" delegations? With pure direct votes only, participation will suffer because voting often on many matters is inconvenient to most people.

The "tagging" of proposals is nice. However, who define the "tag hierarchy"? Is it even necessary to have such a hieararchy, I don't think so.

The token from the Registration Authority seems to defeat coercion-resistance and receipt-freeness. Unless it was handled using strong crypto primitives (and how long do those last?) that would preclude looking up how this one user voted, it would result in a rather evil system.

Otherwise I like it.