How about one on "How democracy starts" Where the average person discards any candidate who refuses to sign a recall guarantee to introduce and support a few basics such as Single Transferable vote, state funded comparison of candidate recall guarantees, national holiday on voting day with jury oversight (not returning officer Freemason friends)

I think the powers that be conform to Plato's democratic curse. The three groups of people WOULD win in a democratic election, but they hold elections that are faux democratic. Candidates without a platform have no voice, candidates can lie and thus be bribed and blackmailed to act against that which they stood on, First Past The Post allows the wealthy to stand multiple versions of their opposition and split that vote.

Political division between us and us would be an essential part of the faux democracy. The establishment can not win if the issues focused on were offshore landlords having the protection of their rent bearing assets subsidised. That politicians should not be able to profit via wars they call. The obvious injustices that the public agree on 20:1 across the board are not being discussed and therefore we can conclude that the entire scope of mainstream debate is manipulated but the offshore establishment and their secret society footmen.

I think it's more likely that InqTel started and grew Facebook and Zuckerberg was just a character in which to remove the idea of state manipulation.

Labour members may well be a movement that does not believe in first past the post style elections, but the NEC is still opposed to re-selection, accountable mandates, electoral reform so while the 600,000 members like what Jeremy Corbyn presents himself as, it's quite clear that ordinary representatives of the membership have not stood in the hustings and won. People need to be less trusting. 1 in 20 is a sociopath, 1 in 100 a Freemason. 1 in 1000 voters might consider standing as a councillor. The chances are that all the candidates are sociopaths and Freemasons acting the part. This is why educating voters to insist on binding commitments to propose and support the basics is essential.

Professor David Runciman, Head of the Department of Politics and International Studies at the University of Cambridge and author of How Democracy Ends, argues that, far from following the familiar pattern of military takeover or collapse in the rule of law, it is likely that democracy will fail in the 21st century in ways that we are not yet familiar with and that rather than implosion, it may simply fade away, hollowed out by forces of technological progress and social division that we lack the power to understand, never mind to resist.

Read David's feature article: www.festivalofideas.cam.ac.uk/how-democracy-ends

Comments

Kaz Loku

Kaz Loku

Kaz Loku

Kaz Loku

Kaz Loku