> you're already manipulating the system to encourage your preferred outcome. That is a very one sided look at it. Any system encourages something. If you mak

> you're already manipulating the system to encourage your preferred outcome. That is a very one sided look at it. Any system encourages something. If you make improvements simply to make the overall system operate better then its not manipulation towards a better outcome. > Also, how are you going to get something like that passed without the agreement of the delegates? That is literally the problem any system of democracy has. Every system of democracy has some established initial rules and must evolve from there. Those that have good initial rules tend to evolve better but many things have an effect. And you do it the same way in liquid system as in any other system, politics. You try to find a group that supports it for some reason, even for not the same reason. You get together those that have not delegated, you mobilize those that have delegated and try to inform them that their delegate is changing their interest and you find some that already have 'super' status that they could actually gain votes in that are now tied up 'bad' delegates. Of course all evolution of rules in democracy is always a huge bitch but that doesn't make liquid democracy systems different form other systems. And just like with every other system of democracy it makes sense to establish best practices and it makes sense to learn and improve the system over time. When somebody knew wants to use it they have a better starting point. So the second point is kind of pointless, just because some improvement maybe wouldn't be adopted in an already existing system doesn't mean its not a worthy improvement. Just as we know Range voting would be have huge improvement over existing voting systems. Nobody sane today would design a first past the post voting system with single delegate districts.