> The two variables are independent. You can have direct, liquid, representative democracy with or without secret ballot; therefore, they are orthogonal issues.

> The two variables are independent. You can have direct, liquid, representative democracy with or without secret ballot; therefore, they are orthogonal issues. The two variables are not independent because the delegation system destroys the principle feature which makes ballot secrecy trivial (every person casts the same number of votes in the same way over the same time window). Workarounds for this have significant cost (requirement to use "black box" software or requirement for delegation to take place strictly prior to the actual vote and for a person with a lot of delegated votes to fill in potentially hundreds of ballot papers, or requirement for delegates to fill in special multiple-vote ballots which may end up being personally identifiable despite best endeavours to anonymise them). > As I commented elsewhere, you don't need to be aware that you are anyone's delegate, just that you are a delegate. And if you don't know whose delegate you are, you might unintentionally cancel out a vote you would normally delegate by delegating to someone who delegated to you. As I commented in the very next sentence. Individually identifiable delegations or permitting edge cases with cancelling-out delegations resulting in no actual votes cast by a particular group, pick your poison. (I guess you could also avoid this collision by only permitting delegation to a separate class of people who are not allowed to delegate their own votes but that's a completely different system to the one described in the paper which will yield completely different results...)