Resilient Liquid Democracy Mitigating Voting Power Imbalances via Secure Delegation Networks

Jul 16, 2026

Liquid democracy improves collective decision-making by enabling direct voting, delegation, or fallback-based hybrid participation, yet many real deployments use transparent delegation that enables herding, makes coercion verifiable, and can become fragile when prominent delegates abstain. The paper proposes a secure liquid democracy mechanism balancing expertise routing with systemic robustness through sealed delegation via decentralized timed-release encryption. It restores public auditability for final tallies, adds ranked multi-delegation and personal fallback ballots, and proves pre-reveal secrecy and resubmission receipt-freeness.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages36

Reading Time1 h 31 min

Introduction

Liquid democracy and delegation mechanisms

Limitations of transparent delegation

Design tension and proposed solution

Protocol overview and contributions

arXiv :2607 .0 1730v 1 [ cs .CR] 2 Jul 2026 Resilient Liquid Democracy: Mitigating Voting Power Imbalances via Secure Delegation Networks Zhuolun Li, Evangelos Pournaras School of Computer Science, University of Leeds, UK July 3, 2026 Abstract Liquid democracy promises to improve collective decision-making by allowing voters to vote directly, delegate their voting power to trusted participants, or combine both approaches through fallback mechanisms. However, existing deployments typically rely on transparent delegation, which exposes voters to popularity-driven herding, makes coercion verifiable, and introduces systemic fragility when highly-backed delegates abstain. In this paper, we propose a secure liquid democracy mechanism that resolves the tension between informed expertise routing and systemic robustness. We introduce a sealed delegation regime using decentralized timed-release encryption, which cryptographically hides delegation choices during the formation phase to prevent herding and coercion, while restoring full public auditability for the final tally. To address delegate failures, we extend the protocol with ranked multi-delegation and personal fallback ballots. We formally prove pre-reveal secrecy and resubmission receiptfreeness for our protocol. Finally, we evaluate the mechanism on four real datasets, a municipal participatory-budgeting election with a calibration survey, twenty further participatory-budgeting elections, and 60,000 US voters with an objective competence measure. They show that whether delegation improves representational accuracy follows a recoverable-gap law; it helps only when abstention is large and systematically unrepresentative, and is otherwise neutral or harmful, with representative-style delegation safer than delegating to a competence elite. The benefit of sealed formation is primarily structural, sharply reducing power concentration rather than directly improving accuracy; and ranked multi-delegation with personal fallback ballots sharply reduces vote loss under realistic and targeted delegate failures, a result that replicates across all twenty elections. 1 Introduction In real-world collective decision making, participants often differ in how much time, information, and confidence they have when evaluating the issue under consideration. Some participants have substantial domain knowledge, some have relevant local or professional experience, and others simply trust certain people more than they trust themselves on a given decision. Liquid democracy is often proposed as a mechanism for such settings. It allows a voter to participate by voting directly, transferring their voting power to another participant, or utilizing both via fallback mechanisms. This flexibility can lower the burden of participation when a voter is busy, uncertain, or insufficiently informed, and it can also improve decision quality when voters choose delegates whom they regard as more reliable, more informed, or more aligned with their judgment. Despite this potential, existing liquid democracy systems are poorly suited for secure and reliable use in real-world deployments. Most implementations operate under a transparent delegation regime, in which delegation choices are publicly observable as they are formed or can be inferred from the system state. This creates several problems. First, visible delegations encourage herding and popularity cascades. Early or well-known delegates may attract a disproportionate share of support simply because they already appear popular. Second, transparent delegation makes influence easier to verify. If others can observe or later prove how a voter delegated, then rewards, pressure, or retaliation can be conditioned on that behavior. Third, many systems support only a single delegate. If that delegate abstains, becomes inactive, behaves maliciously, or misrepresents the voter, the delegated vote can be lost or distorted. These limitations create a basic

FAQs

What problem do transparent liquid democracy systems create during delegation formation?

Transparent delegation makes delegations publicly observable or inferable, which encourages herding/popularity cascades and enables coercion or bribery to be conditioned on observable delegation behavior.

Jul 16, 2026

Upload by Emma Wilson