  We study wisdom of the crowd effects in liquid democracy when agents are
allowed to apportion weights to proxies by mixing their delegations. We show
that in this setting -- unlike in the standard one where votes are always
delegated in full to one proxy -- it becomes possible to identify delegation
structures that optimize the truth-tracking accuracy of the group. We contrast
this centralized solution with the group accuracy obtained in equilibrium when
agents interact by greedily trying to maximize their own individual accuracy
through mixed delegations, and study the price of anarchy of these games. While
equilibria with mixed delegations may be as bad as in the standard delegations
setting, they are never worse and may sometimes be better.
