IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sochwe/v64y2025i1d10.1007_s00355-024-01543-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Flexible representative democracy

Author

Listed:
  • Ben Abramowitz

    (Tulane University)

  • Nicholas Mattei

    (Tulane University)

Abstract

We introduce Flexible Representative Democracy (FRD), a novel hybrid of Representative Democracy and Direct Democracy in which voters can alter the issue-dependent weights of a set of elected representatives. In line with the literature on Interactive Democracy, our model allows the voters to actively determine the degree to which the system is direct versus representative. However, unlike Liquid Democracy, Flexible Representative Democracy uses strictly non-transitive delegations, making delegation cycles impossible, and maintains a fixed set of accountable, elected representatives. We present Flexible Representative Democracy and analyze it using a computational approach with issues that are binary and symmetric. We compare the outcomes of various voting systems using Direct Democracy with majority voting as an ideal baseline. First, we demonstrate the shortcomings of Representative Democracy in our model. We provide NP-Hardness results for electing an ideal set of representatives, discuss pathologies, and demonstrate empirically that common multi-winner election rules for selecting representatives do not perform well in expectation. To analyze the effects of adding delegation to representative voting systems, we begin by providing theoretical results on how issue-specific delegations determine outcomes. Finally, we provide empirical results comparing the outcomes of various voting systems: Representative Democracy, Proxy Voting, and FRD with issue-specific delegations. Our results show that variants of Proxy Voting yield no discernible benefit over unweighted representatives and reveal the potential for Flexible Representative Democracy to improve outcomes as voter participation increases.

Suggested Citation

  • Ben Abramowitz & Nicholas Mattei, 2025. "Flexible representative democracy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 64(1), pages 263-308, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:64:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s00355-024-01543-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s00355-024-01543-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00355-024-01543-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00355-024-01543-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emmanuelle Auriol & Robert Gary-Bobo, 2012. "On the optimal number of representatives," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 153(3), pages 419-445, December.
    2. Gerasimou, Georgios, 2021. "Simple preference intensity comparisons," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    3. Martin Shubik, 1970. "On homo politicus and the instant referendum," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 79-84, September.
    4. Nitzan, Shmuel & Paroush, Jacob, 1982. "Optimal Decision Rules in Uncertain Dichotomous Choice Situations," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 23(2), pages 289-297, June.
    5. Jacqueline Harding, 2022. "Proxy selection in transitive proxy voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(1), pages 69-99, January.
    6. Drora Karotkin & Jacob Paroush, 2003. "Optimum committee size: Quality-versus-quantity dilemma," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 20(3), pages 429-441, June.
    7. Haris Aziz & Markus Brill & Vincent Conitzer & Edith Elkind & Rupert Freeman & Toby Walsh, 2017. "Justified representation in approval-based committee voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 461-485, February.
    8. Smith, John H, 1973. "Aggregation of Preferences with Variable Electorate," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(6), pages 1027-1041, November.
    9. Ben-Yashar, Ruth C & Nitzan, Shmuel I, 1997. "The Optimal Decision Rule for Fixed-Size Committees in Dichotomous Choice Situations: The General Result," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 38(1), pages 175-186, February.
    10. James Green-Armytage, 2015. "Direct voting and proxy voting," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 190-220, June.
    11. Ilia Tsetlin & Michel Regenwetter & Bernard Grofman, 2003. "The impartial culture maximizes the probability of majority cycles," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21(3), pages 387-398, December.
    12. Scott Feld & Bernard Grofman, 1984. "The accuracy of group majority decisions in groups with added members," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 273-285, January.
    13. James Miller, 1969. "A program for direct and proxy voting in the legislative process," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 107-113, September.
    14. Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1985. "Ordinal Ranking with Intensity of Preference," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 26-32, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dhillon, Amrita & Kotsialou, Grammateia & Xefteris, Dimitris, 2021. "Information Aggregation with Delegation of Votes," SocArXiv ubk7p, Center for Open Science.
    2. Eyal Baharad & Ruth Ben-Yashar & Shmuel Nitzan, 2020. "Variable Competence and Collective Performance: Unanimity Versus Simple Majority Rule," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 157-167, February.
    3. Baharad, Eyal & Ben-Yashar, Ruth & Patal, Tal, 2020. "On the merit of non-specialization in the context of majority voting," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 128-133.
    4. BAHARAD, Eyal & BEN-YASHAR, Ruth & NITZAN, Shmuel, 2018. "Variable Competence and Collective Performance: Unanimity vs. Simple Majority Rule," Discussion paper series HIAS-E-80, Hitotsubashi Institute for Advanced Study, Hitotsubashi University.
    5. Joseph Campbell & Alessandra Casella & Lucas de Lara & Victoria R. Mooers & Dilip Ravindran, 2022. "Liquid Democracy. Two Experiments on Delegation in Voting," NBER Working Papers 30794, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Sapir, Luba, 2005. "Generalized means of jurors' competencies and marginal changes of jury's size," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 83-101, July.
    7. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Mor Zahavi, 2011. "The Condorcet jury theorem and extension of the franchise with rationally ignorant voters," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(3), pages 435-443, September.
    8. Ruth Ben-Yashar, 2014. "The generalized homogeneity assumption and the Condorcet jury theorem," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 237-241, August.
    9. Ruth Ben-Yashar, 2023. "An application of simple majority rule to a group with an even number of voters," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(1), pages 83-95, January.
    10. James Green-Armytage, 2015. "Direct voting and proxy voting," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 190-220, June.
    11. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Shmuel Nitzan, 2017. "Are two better than one? A note," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 323-329, June.
    12. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Shmuel Nitzan, 2017. "Is diversity in capabilities desirable when adding decision makers?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(3), pages 395-402, March.
    13. Bryan C. McCannon & Paul Walker, 2016. "Endogenous competence and a limit to the Condorcet Jury Theorem," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 1-18, October.
    14. Eyal Baharad & Jacob Goldberger & Moshe Koppel & Shmuel Nitzan, 2012. "Beyond Condorcet: optimal aggregation rules using voting records," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 113-130, January.
    15. Hans Gersbach, 2024. "Forms of new democracy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 62(4), pages 799-837, June.
    16. Chris Dong & Patrick Lederer, 2023. "Refined Characterizations of Approval-based Committee Scoring Rules," Papers 2312.08799, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    17. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Winston Koh & Shmuel Nitzan, 2012. "Is specialization desirable in committee decision making?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(3), pages 341-357, March.
    18. Ruth Ben‐Yashar & Miriam Krausz & Shmuel Nitzan, 2018. "Government loan guarantees and the credit decision‐making structure," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(2), pages 607-625, May.
    19. Eric Libby & Leon Glass, 2010. "The Calculus of Committee Composition," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(9), pages 1-8, September.
    20. Andrea C. Hupman & Jay Simon, 2023. "The Legacy of Peter Fishburn: Foundational Work and Lasting Impact," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:64:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s00355-024-01543-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.