In 2003, I held over 40% of the voting power in my own direct democracy experiment.
This wasn’t a coup. It was the logical outcome of Liquid Democracy—the system we used to liberate citizens from representative politics. People trusted me, so they delegated their votes to me. And just like that, we had recreated the very elite we set out to abolish.
I am the founder of Demoex (Democracy Experiment). Demoex won a seat on the Vallentuna municipal council in Sweden in 2002. We were pioneers of digital democracy, and Liquid Democracy was our gospel. The promise was elegant: vote on everything yourself, or delegate to someone you trust. It was considered a bridge between rigid representation and chaotic direct democracy.
By 2004, we had abandoned it.
Liquid Democracy: The Power Pool
In Liquid Democracy, the proxy is king. You transfer your voting power to an expert, an activist, a friend. It sounds efficient. In practice, it creates a new aristocracy.
When you can give your voice away, you stop using it. The majority of our participants became passive, outsourcing their civic duty to a handful of digital super-representatives. We had not created a democracy of engaged citizens. We had created a delegation machine that concentrated power in the hands of the popular and the persistent.
The problem is structural. A proxy is a sink, and liquid is flowing into it. Any system that allows political power to flow freely will create hierarchies, just as water finds the lowest ground.
Peer Democracy: The Power of Limitation
Peer Democracy begins from a different premise. For democracy to be equal, influence must be a limited resource. It cannot be traded or delegated.
In a Peer Democracy, every citizen receives a constrained budget of votes and motions per year. You cannot give your votes to a proxy. You must choose where to invest your limited influence. This constraint achieves two things:
It prevents power concentration. No one can accumulate 40% of the voting power because every peer is capped at the same limit.
It cultivates genuine engagement. When you have only a handful of votes per year, you spend them on issues you understand deeply. Things that directly affect your life. The crowd transforms into a network of specialized peers, each contributing expertise where it matters most to them.
The scarcity is not a bug—it is the powerful mechanism that turns direct democracy into an expert system. Peer democracy promises to bridge the competence gap between voters and elected officials. Power limitation is as efficient in politics as specialization on the labor market. Moreover, it facilitates equality.
From Coercion to Consent
The current political system grants majorities the right to coerce minorities. A council can approve a highway through your neighborhood over your objection. This “right to override” creates a market for corruption. Those who want the highway can bribe decision-makers. They do this to ignore your interests.
Peer Democracy replaces coercion with consent. If a project negatively affects your quality of life, you have the right to be compensated. Both parties must agree to the terms. The exploiter cannot simply pay a politician to override you. They must negotiate directly with those affected.
What about wealthy interests simply buying consent from poorer citizens? Two safeguards matter here. First, all voting in Peer Democracy is anonymous and tamper-free. No one can verify how you voted. This means no one can purchase your vote with any confidence. Second, compensation is negotiated collectively by affected groups, not extracted from isolated individuals.
The backroom bribe becomes an open negotiation. The money flows not to politicians but to the people whose lives are affected.
Comparison: Liquid vs. Peer Democracy
| Feature | Liquid Democracy | Peer Democracy |
| Primary Mechanism | Delegation (Proxies) | Investment (Active Peers) |
| Power Distribution | Power flows to the popular | Power stays decentralized |
| Citizen Role | Passive (Outsourcing) | Active (Self-Allocation) |
| Conflict Resolution | Majority Rule | Consent & Compensation |
| Corruption Risk | High (Delegation of Coercion) | Low (Bribes become Compensation) |
| Social Aspect | Digital Isolation | Community (Democratic Festivals) |
The Democratic Muscle
Democracy is like a muscle. If you delegate your exercise to a personal trainer, you don’t get stronger—they do.
Liquid Democracy, in all its elegance, is a system of delegation that leads to civic atrophy. Power flows to the trusted few, and the many disengage. This means no real difference from a representative democracy.
Peer Democracy is a system of activation. By limiting individual power and demanding personal investment, it builds a society of engaged, equal, and empowered peers. Smart incentives furthermore fuel the societal changes.
Twenty years ago, I concentrated 40% of the votes in a system designed to distribute power. I have spent the time since creating a system where that outcome is structurally impossible.
It is time to stop delegating democracy—and start exercising it.