I'm intrigued by Jim Rutt's formulation of Liquid Democracy.

The observation is that most voters in practice are "noise voters".

They don't pay that much attention, so they attend to some meaningless thing like how good the candidate's hair looks.

In Liquid Democratic systems, every participant still has one vote.

But for a given topic domain, they can hand it to someone else.

That person can also hand it to some else.

At any time the person can reclaim their vote, or override the vote of their delegate.

But as long as the gradient tends towards people who are more informed on that particular topic, then this system could lead to radically higher-quality debates and outcomes instead of turf wars over emergent us-vs-them wars.

LLMs, with their qualitative nuance at quantitative scale, would plausibly help people both delegate their votes and also figure out when to override their delegates.

This could be a system to get coherent pluralism.

Of course, this would just create a new meta-game, and it's possible that the emergent outcomes would be even worse than before.