Advertisement

The Fluid Mechanics of Liquid Democracy

  • Paul GölzEmail author
  • Anson Kahng
  • Simon Mackenzie
  • Ariel D. Procaccia
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11316)

Abstract

Liquid democracy is the principle of making collective decisions by letting agents transitively delegate their votes. Despite its significant appeal, it has become apparent that a weakness of liquid democracy is that a small subset of agents may gain massive influence. To address this, we propose to change the current practice by allowing agents to specify multiple delegation options instead of just one. Much like in nature, where—fluid mechanics teaches us—liquid maintains an equal level in connected vessels, so do we seek to control the flow of votes in a way that balances influence as much as possible. Specifically, we analyze the problem of choosing delegations to approximately minimize the maximum number of votes entrusted to any agent, by drawing connections to the literature on confluent flow. We also introduce a random graph model for liquid democracy, and use it to demonstrate the benefits of our approach both theoretically and empirically.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Miklos Z. Racz for very helpful pointers to analyses of preferential attachment models.

References

  1. 1.
    Azar, Y., Broder, A.Z., Karlin, A.R., Upfal, E.: Balanced allocations. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 593–602 (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barabási, A.L., Albert, R.: Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286, 509–512 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Behrens, J., Kistner, A., Nitsche, A., Swierczek, B.: The principles of LiquidFeedback. Interaktive Demokratie (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brill, M.: Interactive democracy. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS) (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, J., Kleinberg, R.D., Lovász, L., Rajaraman, R., Sundaram, R., Vetta, A.: (Almost) tight bounds and existence theorems for single-commodity confluent flows. J. ACM 54(4) (2007). Article 16MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, J., Rajaraman, R., Sundaram, R.: Meet and merge: Approximation algorithms for confluent flows. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 72(3), 468–489 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christoff, Z., Grossi, D.: Binary voting with delegable proxy: An analysis of liquid democracy. In: Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK), pp. 134–150 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gölz, P., Kahng, A., Mackenzie, S., Procaccia, A.D.: The fluid mechanics of liquid democracy (2018). https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.01906.pdf
  9. 9.
    Green-Armytage, J.: Direct voting and proxy voting. Const. Polit. Econ. 26(2), 190–220 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haslegrave, J., Jordan, J.: Preferential attachment with choice. Random Struct. Algorithms 48(4), 751–766 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kahng, A., Mackenzie, S., Procaccia, A.D.: Liquid democracy: An algorithmic perspective. In: Proceedings of the 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kling, C.C., Kunegis, J., Hartmann, H., Strohmaier, M., Staab, S.: Voting behaviour and power in online democracy. In: Proceedings of the 9th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM), pp. 208–217 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kumar, R., Novak, J., Tomkins, A.: Structure and evolution of online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), pp. 611–617 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Malyshkin, Y., Paquette, E.: The power of choice over preferential attachment. Lat. Am. J. Probab. Math. Stat. 12(2), 903–915 (2015)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller, J.C.: A program for direct and proxy voting in the legislative process. Public Choice 7(1), 107–113 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Newman, M.E.J.: Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Phys. Rev. E 64(2), 1–13 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations