Breaking Democracy’s Chains: Metin Pekin Challenges Party Politics

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_03 (00:01):
Hello and welcome to the All the Ambition Podcast.
I'm your very followed host, andthe one with all the ambition
today is Mr.
Meton Peacan.
The author of BreakingDemocracy's Chains.
Welcome to the podcast today,Meton.

SPEAKER_01 (00:24):
Thank you so much.
And it's a pleasure to be here.
Thank you for the having me.
Thank you for the invite.

SPEAKER_03 (00:31):
It's my pleasure.
I've had various guests on,especially over the past month
or so, addressing the problem ofdemocracy.
Now, this might sound like anoxymoron to some people.
Democracy seems like almost thisteleological or Hegelian ideal

(00:53):
that we have arrived at.
Representation from the nation.
But we have problems now, andthe problems seem systemic,
endemic.
Everything from polarization tocorruption to bias leads to a

(01:14):
state where individual votersfeel disempowered,
disenfranchised, frustrated.
And you offer what some mightconsider a radical solution to
many of the problems facing ourelectoral system.

(01:35):
Can you give us a quickbackground as to what you're
proposing and how you got there?

SPEAKER_01 (01:44):
Certainly, certainly.
Well, look, I think it's thankyou again for having me.
It's very timely.
And uh those people who feeldisenfranchised are not alone.
There are across the globe,across the Western democracies,
most people feel the same.
And I think we need to startwith the uh role of money in

(02:08):
politics.
That's a massive, massiveinfluence.
Basically, what we have is aparty system that we have been
told that is inseparable fromdemocracy.

(02:28):
But nothing could be furtheraway from the truth.
Parties let alone being truerepresentatives of the people,
they are gatekeepers of thepower.
They filter candidates, ideas,policies, before even it gets in

(02:51):
front of the people.
So very current and I want to bebang in the middle neither left
nor right because I think thatis a trap.
But if you look at if you lookat the current uh conflict with
Iran, about forty people, fortypercent of the American people

(03:17):
oppose the war.
Only around 20%, according toIpsos uh uh survey are in
support of it.
So an overwhelming majority ofAmerican people are against the
war, against conflicts.

(03:38):
And in fact, President Trump waselected on the promise of ending
endless wars.
And yet you had votes throughthe Congress that does not limit
president's uh powers.
The war continues.
So there is a puzzle herebecause people don't want it,

(04:04):
yet the administration continuewith the major issues.
Now, this is not just Trump.
We had it under Biden, we had itunder Obama, we had it under
Clinton.
So there is a problem.
There is a problem that uh thegovernments of our countries,

(04:25):
UK, US, and other Europeancountries, are not responsive to
public will.
Democracy in a simplet in itssimplest term means power
belongs to people and those whoexercise it are accountable to

(04:48):
people.
Yet in real life that is nothappening.
Yes, we go to the pollingstation, yes, we cast our votes,
but we're casting our votes fordifferent managers of the same
system.
It's not a real choice, it's nota real democratic choice.

SPEAKER_03 (05:11):
That's demonstrably true.
There's various factors.
So you mentioned money, theSupreme Court, and what I was
hinting at was the citizen inthe United case, which empowered
special interest groups tobasically flood elections with
money.

SPEAKER_01 (05:28):
Exactly right, exactly right, Moki.
Now you now kind of hit the nailon the head there.
So money corrupts politics.
And when the floodgates openedthat uh money could be poured

(05:48):
into politics, the problembecomes the party system because
these uh special interest groupspeople with the money who invest
into the politics andpoliticians are obviously have
uh politicians' ear, they formpolicies, they literally control

(06:17):
the direction of that policy,and they filter people who share
their views who are gonna beserving their interests rather
than the interest of the public.
So we're on the same page there.

SPEAKER_03 (06:31):
Money brought up another issue, too, which is
even the primary process in arigidly two-party system.
I had another guest, Tom Josephof America's Main Street Party.

SPEAKER_00 (06:48):
Yep.

SPEAKER_03 (06:49):
And he had developed a technological application
which enabled and empoweredvoters to get involved in the
primary process a lot earlierthan they normally do.
I had another guest, RamonPerez, of the Digital Democracy
Project.

(07:09):
And he talks about giving voterstransparency to the bills that
are being considered and actedon and holding politicians
accountable.
So these gentlemen offertechnological, if not remedies,
at least uh some massaging ofthese issues that you bring up.

(07:32):
Uh, how does your solutiondiffer from these interim steps
to give voters moretransparency?
What is what is at the heart ofyour recommendation for
transforming a system which justabout everybody admits is
broken?

SPEAKER_01 (07:50):
Okay, so digital solution is gonna improve
things.
That is not uh that is notdisputed.
But we are talking aboutsomething that's fundamentally
wrong here, somethingfundamentally wrong with the
party system.
Now, if you go back to thefounding fathers, they grappled

(08:16):
with the factions effectivelywho became political parties.
And Federalist number 10, JamesMadison, uh was very, very, very
concerned with along others, uh,about the factions, that one day

(08:37):
they will put their owninterests before the interest of
the citizens and interest of therepublic.
However, they did not want tolimit them or ban them because
that would come across asanti-democratic.
Now, the problem in itself iswith the party system.

(09:01):
No matter whether you how youpatch it, that will be a plaster
uh on the wound.
You you're not fixing the keyproblem.
And that key problem isinstitutionalized by a party
system that fuels division andpolarizes the nation.
As uh Liliana Mason in her greatbook Uncivil Agreement puts it

(09:27):
across parties have fusedpolitical identity with the
cultural identity and createdwhat she calls a mega identity.
So it ends up that now left seesright as an existential threat
and vice versa, right sees theleft as existential threat.

(09:50):
That is not the case.
That is not the case because weare pitted against each other on
cultural matters.
Whereas when it comes to the keyissues of representation,
surveillance, wars, cuts topublic services, you couldn't

(10:19):
get a cigarette paper betweenthem.
Wars continued under bothadministrations, Republicans and
the Democrats.
So whether it's blue or red,surveillance continues on both
parties, and civil liberties arebeing uh chipped away.
So uh just uh having a digitaluh means of controlling your uh

(10:47):
primaries or or or having abetter transparency at the
primaries isn't gonna solve theproblem because uh fundamentally
uh as long as uh factions arerecognized as uh entities that
raise money that uh basicallyact as gatekeepers of power by

(11:11):
filtering people and ideas, thenwe've got a problem.
Now imagine these digitalplatforms and you've got a
representative that's selectedthrough that process.

SPEAKER_00 (11:30):
The challenge doesn't end there.

SPEAKER_03 (11:32):
When I I got you.
I again these these twogentlemen came up within our
two-party system, and theirtheir approach was to see what
they can do within the existingboundaries.
But indeed, all right.
I'm I'm with you.
I'm with you.
There's these fundamentalissues.
Very few Americans will disagreewith you that we've got

(11:55):
fundamental issues, andpolarization has only been
increasing to a fever pitch,especially with social media,
and it's getting worse, notbetter.
So give us your vision of what anon-party democracy would be

(12:17):
like, and then we could tacklearguably the tougher issue of
how you conceive of making thisactually happen.
Certainly.

SPEAKER_01 (12:25):
Okay, uh, let's start off with stopping the
gatekeeping, because we need areal choice.
Of people to sit asrepresentatives based on their
performance, based on theirrecord, based on their pledges.

SPEAKER_00 (12:50):
So the existing constituents will remain the
same.

SPEAKER_01 (12:56):
The system almost entirely is preserved without
barring taking the parties offthe ballot box.
So it's not radical in thatterms.
We are saying, well, look, thereis some state and whatever you

(13:16):
take the party labels off theballot.
So individuals stand as uhindependent representatives.
Obviously, to uh be a serious uhcandidate, you would uh possibly
get X number of uh signaturesfrom the voters to to qualify

(13:40):
for that.
And then you could use uh uhbasically, let's say there is
half a dozen uh candidates thatwant to stand in your
constituency.
And then through rank choicevoting, people choosing their
first, second, third preferenceof these candidates, you're
electing these independentrepresentatives as a first step.

(14:05):
Once these representatives arein the legislature, they are
speaking on behalf of theirconstituents.
Not on behalf of the party,there's no party whip or party
discipline, uh not uh you knowcommittee assignments taken
away, funding taken away,primary challenges introduced.

(14:27):
So there is no threat from theparty monopoly, if you like.
These people are now accountableto the public, their
constituents.
So once these representativesare in the legislature for the
executive the 400 and odd uhnumbers, whatever the the number

(14:50):
is uh in US representativescould nominate the president and
the running mate uh candidatesuh to a process.
The ones that get the mostbacking through uh through
voting and through panels andtalk shows that they host in

(15:12):
America as a tradition, layingout their policies, they will
narrow the field down to twopresidential candidates and
their running mates.
The winning ticket will form theexecutive as they do now, and
the runner-up will assume therole of opposition party, but

(15:34):
without the party affiliation,basically scrutinizing the
executive and uh informingpublic and the independent
representatives on alternativelegislations or alternative
interpretations of what's beingproposed.
So that independentrepresentatives are now

(15:55):
accountable to theirconstituents, there is a
structure in place to uh havethe same system continued.
Now what you have is a naturalevolvement of the democracy from
this monopoly of party system totrue representation and

(16:20):
independent representativesforming coalitions around each
and every policy and using theirconscience and the opinion of
their constituency so that theycan make decisions that is in
the best interest of the publicrather than best interest of the

(16:41):
funding uh machine of militaryindustrial complex, big pharma,
finance, you name it, or otherspecial interest groups.
This is a matter of life anddeath.

SPEAKER_03 (16:58):
In principle, this sounds intriguing and exciting.
Uh in in practice, certainchallenges bubble up almost
almost immediately.
Let's let's start with theelectorate, not even talking
about money and influence andbacking, let's talk about the

(17:21):
individual American voter.
The onus now is placed from theparties to delineate in in broad
strokes, and there's overlap andthere's contradiction.
But when an American votes for aDemocrat on the left or a

(17:45):
Republican ostensibly on theright, it's a little bit like
reaching for a product in thesupermarket.
You more or less have a brandassociation, you've got a brand
identity.
And at least in traditionalterms, the American left has

(18:06):
been an advocate of a set ofprinciples.
And once again, there'svariability, there's overlap,
there's ad hoc inconsistencies,but generally speaking, I vote
Democrat, I'm voting for acandidate who is more or less

(18:27):
the following, in support ofbigger government, in support of
what we would considerhumanistic values, affirmative
action, give the underdog alittle bit of extra help.
I'm in favor of public serviceprograms and big public service

(18:52):
projects.
And the list goes on of the leftprogressive Democrat.
Conversely, mirror mirror, if Ivote Republican, I want less
government.
I'm tired, especially now, I'mtired of affirmative action and

(19:14):
minorities being treated specialor different.
And I want a tight border andimmigration cut.
So you see where I'm getting at.
So from your system, just so Ibetter understand what your
solution proposes, you haveindividual candidates with their

(19:37):
own sensibility about all ofthese issues.
And then when I vote for Metonor Mookie, then I get Menton's
opinions or Mookie's opinions,and frankly, the onus is on me
to really figure out what thisperson is all about.

(20:01):
Now, how the hell am I gonnaknow as a voter what I'm getting
with a Meton or a Mookie?
And to be honest with you, Idon't have time to peruse a
roster of dozens of potentialcandidates, each with their own
position on all of these issues.

(20:23):
And the the two-party systemsucks.
Um, you know, it's biased, it'scorrupt, it limits my ability to
influence the government, butmore or less I know what I'm
getting.
Like when I'm in the supermarketand I reach for a product.

SPEAKER_01 (20:44):
Or or do you, or do you?

SPEAKER_03 (20:47):
Let's let's just analyze that.
I more or less know what I'mgetting.
So, how do you address this thisbaseline issue of stripping
candidates of party affiliation,voting on them individually, and

(21:08):
the limited bandwidth, sometimesno bandwidth, of the American
voter.
Going back quickly to ourfounding fathers, we're not even
so much a democracy as arepresent as a representational
democracy, right?
It's a representative democracy,and we have the House and
Senate, and the House is fromeach district, yes, and it's

(21:31):
like the House of Lords and theHouse of Commons.
There was an inherent distrustof the common voter built into
our constitution.
So you're turning this around,you are empowering these
unwashed masses to make thesebig decisions, and you expect

(21:55):
them to know an awful lot abouta lot of candidates.
How, how, how

SPEAKER_01 (22:00):
this gonna work out okay so we are in a different
era than the founding fathersfounding fathers during the
found founding fathers' time thecommunication was not instant
information was not available wedidn't have the typewriters we
didn't even have radios nevermind television and internet so

(22:23):
we're talking about informationage and you know from social
media the information isdistributed decimated instantly
and people can reach uh oneanother organize instantly has
this made us smarter or morepolarized and more stupid and

(22:46):
misinformed or that's a verythat that's that's a very very
good question look I mean itprobably will will will will
take another few hours for us touh open up that topic uh but
suffice to say tools internet isjust tool just like the guns

(23:08):
like the you know you you you asa country are big on civil
liberties and your guns and whathave you internet is only a tool
it's how you use it yeah that'swhy I brought up these two
gentlemen who are using theinternet in a way that you
described which is enhancingtransparency and empowering the

(23:28):
individual earlier and deeper inthe election process.

SPEAKER_03 (23:34):
Correct so I I'm with you I see where this is
going but I'm on TikTok I'm aninfluencer on TikTok too and I
get a tsunami of idiocy withevery post I make it's
astonishing when you when youdip your toes into the cesspool
of the internet you do gain alot of transparency and you're

(23:56):
reminded of you know not tosound condescending or
patronizing to my fellowAmericans but the unwashed
masses now have smartphones.

SPEAKER_01 (24:08):
Yeah well look you you you I could not dispute your
experience there and I'm in inagreement with you we've got to
call a spade a spade as we sayhere in Yorkshire England it's
it is what it is but let's kindof uh uh let's kind of uh break
that down a little bit we arefed from the school days and

(24:36):
from our parents left and rightthis is ingrained into us into
our thinking what fires togetherwires together so we have been
thought that parties simplifyoptions red versus blue
democrats versus republicansagree on that and there are

(25:02):
certain promises that they makethat they're going to do let's
say close the borders wellapparently Obama sent more
people away from america illegalimmigrants than Trump has ever
done and he he droneassassinated people by the
thousands in the Middle Eastcorrect absolutely and that's
that's kind of associated withthe that's associated with the

(25:23):
right side rightly or wrongly II wore blue kind of out of
accident to this conversationI'm I'm black I'm neutral I'm
neutral so I think we're bothwe're both more or less in this
libertarian kind of area wherewhere less government is better
and we want the people to befree and empowered 100% and and

(25:45):
that's what democracy means ifyou go back to Athens that's
what democracy means democracypredates parties.
So let me come back to theoriginal point you were making
now maybe I'll open parentheseshere and close it very quickly
through digital primaries andwhat have you even if you elect

(26:08):
somebody it doesn't stop therebecause the party machine A
would have filtered thosecandidates in front of you so
it's not an open market ofcandidates that you've picked
from B once they're elected theparty machine asserts their
power they're they're they'redoing uh you know in UK we had

(26:34):
conservative Republican uhgovernment Boris Johnson's
government and because 21 MPsdid not vote with him with the
party line they got expelledfrom the party almost ruining
their career so what I'm sayingyou can have a say or public can

(26:57):
have a say in the primaries butthe story doesn't end there.

SPEAKER_03 (27:01):
Let's leave that be.
I'm not advocating for thesedigital apps from my prior guest
I'm just illustrating that andI'm leading you on in ways where
these gentlemen have digitalsolutions and I want to hear
from you what your digitalsolution is.
That's where I'm getting at.

SPEAKER_01 (27:21):
So the the solution is this now you've mentioned
without sounding condescendingthere are people out there that
cannot understand theinformation and they are
basically flooding your TikTokuh with silly remarks and and
what have you so and voting forpresidents.

SPEAKER_03 (27:41):
Yeah exactly well look America is a vast country
and it's got uh naturally peoplewith different opinions which we
have got to respect everyopinion as long as it doesn't go
towards violence we've got torespect everybody and every
opinion that's that's the uhbasic principle sure that goes

(28:05):
the first amendment rights ifyou want to get on tick tock and
tell me that I have yellow teethand a bad complexion and I'm an
idiot bring bring it on I Iwelcome it so here is the
solution that the proposedsystem will have now each
candidate will mandatorily puttheir top five or ten pledges on

(28:34):
the ballot on the paper and in aconstituency you will know each
candidate's position onimmigration border control gun
rights you you name it whatevermatters to the American people

(28:54):
as a category it will be onthere they will be pro or
anti-immigration let's say proor anti-walls or pro or
anti-wars or whatever that maybe whatever the policy that
you're concerned with it will besimplified and as half a dozen
points will be a campaigned on bit will be on the ballot box so

(29:20):
when you go into your ballotpaper when you go into the
ballot box you can have a freshreminder what they stand for
also and this is quite animportant point also they will
declare the funding that theyhave had from any groups over

(29:43):
fifty dollars let's say ahundred dollars so what we what
I suggest in my book isdemocracy tax on the big big
donors these billionaires thatbasically buy favors the more
you donate above five hundreddollars or thousand dollars like

(30:07):
the income tax you can tax thisprogressively and say okay you
want to you want to donate itdonate a million pounds to
Mookie we'll tax you that 50% onthat one you want to donate
that's a new angle on CitizensUnited that's very interesting

(30:27):
obviously we haven't got timefor me to explain all of the
book uh and I don't want to besounding marketing here but uh
the we want to hear we want tohear what this idealized
solution is about because it youknow I have another show called
the science fiction factory andpeople talk about speculative

(30:49):
worlds and to some people thissounds like it's apropos for
that show too because this inways is a dream come true that
you've outlined and uh andreasonable people this is
appealing I'm not voting for theDemocrats who aren't really

(31:09):
democrats anymore or RepublicansRepublicans don't even know what
they are anymore because they'remore or less the cult
surrounding an individual who isfickle and uh changes his mind.
So sure it would be great that Iget just to summarize what
you're saying um I get maybe onmy phone profiles of candidates

(31:36):
and the candidates are devoid ofparty affiliation there's no
more parties right correct thisis like a speculative novel here
and uh I I I doom scroll throughthe listing and then I see
candidates who who tiethemselves to key issues and
then promise to abide by themshould they be elected abortion

(32:00):
legal or illegal marijuana gaymarriage immigration dreamers
foreign wars yes we we go on andon and then and then what okay
so then do I get a chance tovote from this the miraculous

(32:21):
application how how do I get mymy word in there the the the
votes are following the samepattern so when you vote for
your representative as you donow you will continue all you do
is that you will have a freemarket of the candidates that
want to be there not just theKorea politicians who have been

(32:45):
either compromised or corruptedthat put before you to choose
between different managers ofthe same system.

SPEAKER_01 (32:55):
So now you've got true lawyers true doctors true
podcasters that are coming onand say I am a decent honest
person that I'm gonna representmy constituency but the beauty
about this is this the beautyabout the system is this
currently let's say you are nothappy with your representative

(33:20):
you are not going to be able tovote that guy out or that person
out he or she because thealternative means letting the
other party in which is even aworse choice.

SPEAKER_03 (33:36):
So you are gonna continue voting for that guy
that ignored your uh your youryour wishes and ignored his
promises and he's done a U-turnon those he's voted but whereas
under this system you know whathis pledges are what her pledges
are what he or she are wherethey're getting their money from

(34:01):
and remember we called itdemocracy tax of big money some
of that money can be spent onthese candidates so they can run
their campaigns a law can bepassed that local media can give
these people after a certainlevel equal access to uh to to

(34:23):
to to media outlets uh but thataside the most important factor
is here is accountabilitybecause you can actually put a
finger on it and say well noMetin we voted for you last time
and you said you was gonna votefor the gay rights you voted

(34:44):
completed opposite you said youwere gonna be anti-abortion but
you voted pro-abortion so thankyou but no thank you out of the
window I'm gonna vote for thenext guy that has been a doctor
for so long and I can trust theguy he's got a record here so
you are given power people havegiven power to punish

(35:06):
representatives that do notrepresent them again going back
to my prior guest Ramon Perezhis app does that in terms of
giving voters currently itexists an application where they
can actually see legislationthat's active in their district

(35:26):
in the capital and then theycould cross reference it using
the application with how theirrepresentative voted.
So if I if I vote in Meton andto your point um you know I want
gay marriage to be happening inmy district and you vote
opposite or abortion or whateverthen actually it shows it on the

(35:50):
app how you actually voted onthe floor of the Capitol and
then gives that but what you'resaying though is exponentially
extrapolating that to bringtransparency and data to the
selection of the candidates andthen the accountability of the

(36:12):
candidates now now is this aplatform is this an interface is
this an app how the hell willthese unwashed masses know all
this okay so the just before Ianswer that question uh just
worth clarifying this uh pointuh on the digital applications

(36:40):
that you have referred to thechoice is curated by the parties
already it's not a digitalplatform because the information
will be available uh on theballot paper but if there is a a
general digital platform thatpeople can see this will

(37:01):
supplement it that's fine sowe're not changing or we I'm not
advocating that the uh theconstitution changes or this
changes the other changes startoff with this you have some
independence in states uh like aBernie Sanders now imagine uh

(37:23):
you have five Bernie Sanders uhlikes of Bernie Sanders there
imagine you have ten likes ofBernie Sanders the balance of
power between Republicans andDemocrats is very thin when
legislation passes is by two orthree votes one way or the other

(37:44):
so once public have elected anumber of MPs that makes a
difference then the system partysystem will lose its legitimacy.
You're gonna eliminate theparties and empower individuals
with with a breadth of choicesdevoid of party affiliation that

(38:09):
are based on policy based onissues and you're empowering
voters with a much broader swathof candidates now my my issue
though is a tsunami ofinformation that comes with that
and potentially confusion.
So going back to my originalpoint Democrats and Republicans

(38:32):
are a mishmash of ad hoc policyand ambiguity and bullshit that
is true however there's ageneral bucket of stuff that is
blue and red and it's still moreor less intact.
Yeah okay cool when you proposedestroying that okay I can't

(38:59):
imagine that these unwashedmasses are gonna troll into a
voting booth and look at a pieceof paper with two dozen
candidates of which there arefive to ten policy issues and be
able to realistically simplyexecute their right to vote in a

(39:22):
way that's coherent andmanageable that that's I'm not
pushing back against your visionI'm merely introducing a
logistical hurdle which is inways central to many of our
problems in democracies there'sjust too much information

(39:42):
there's too much noise yep uhunderstand that understand that
let's let's uh kind of unpackthat let's let's deal with that
uh but it's suffice to sayparties do not like you said
it's a mismatch do not representanybody's views entirely uh

(40:05):
they're aggregators of votes andthey get different groups and
different beliefs in under theirumbrella to win elections yeah
and then they compromiseeveryone knows they compromise
exactly so but that's not ourproblem let's just kind of uh
move to the proposed move to theproposed system now yes people

(40:26):
are not gonna be able to digestevery legislation but that's not
what is asked of the people nowimagine a scenario where I've
got into trouble with the lawwhat do I do I'll go and pick a
lawyer and if that lawyer isgood and he's got a good

(40:48):
reputation that he preventspeople going and doing jail time
he's gonna have a reputation Ihave a health issue I don't have
to be an expert on the health Igo to a specialist one or two of
them and they will summer upthey don't have to explain to me

(41:09):
what that illness or diseasedoes and does not do they will
summarize it for me and say hereis our options this is what we
will do.

SPEAKER_01 (41:20):
Likewise representatives should be
representing us so we'll look atuh maybe two maybe three maybe
five it depends how many peopleare able to get over the
threshold as a series contender.

SPEAKER_03 (41:36):
So we're not gonna have a a flood of candidates
there's gonna be a a a thresholdfor them to get enough sport
locally for them to be seriouscandidates what is that vetting
process because you're swappingout a party infrastructure with

(41:56):
its vetting with its money withits funding okay and its
organization you're throwingthat in the garbage got it and
then you're swapping that withyour own vetting and filtering
and presumably funding processso what exactly is that okay so

(42:22):
let's look at the funding now Ithink US in foreign aid sends
three billion to Egypt so manybillions to uh Jordan so many
billions not anymore they theystill are they still are they
still uh sent 170 90 whatever300 billion to Ukraine now

(42:47):
United States is uh thesuperpower of the world the it
it kind of uh hurts me to saythat if we cannot uh fund our
politicians there is somethingwrong there is something wrong

(43:08):
we have been taught from theeducation through the media but
I want to open parentheses aboutthe media media is now owned by
the same billionaire class areyou saying that the government
are is gonna fund thesecandidates well the I'm not

(43:28):
saying is that part of yourvision part of your solution I'm
not saying that exactly becauseuh it is for Americans to decide
for themselves as to how theycan do it what what I'm saying
what I'm arguing is that thecurrent democracy based on
parties is not a representativeor accountable democracy and

(43:50):
that problem goes back to thefounding fathers that they were
where does the money come from?

SPEAKER_01 (43:57):
Well the money comes from uh Uh I've already said
democracy tax.
And it comes it comes from thepeople themselves that want to
stand as uh and they can raisemoney from the public because
there are all these interestgroups.
So uh you know funding isanother area, uh it's it's a big

(44:19):
buc in American politics.
And I I think Mr.
Bloomberg spent so many millionsof pounds in his is in his
campaign before he dropped out.
Uh so in terms of local uhrepresentatives in in terms of
their constituency, we're nottalking about 50 states, we're

(44:40):
talking about their ownconstituency.
So the funding can come fromraising funds on their own
behalf.
The MPs can have a team to raiseit for themselves, public
support them.
There can be part state funded,part state funded after you
qualify for a certain level, andthen part of it is gonna come

(45:03):
from the big donors taxed andput back into the system so that
it's still but it's stillspecial interests.

SPEAKER_03 (45:11):
You're you're still you're still subject to the
whims of a select few who havemoney.
Well, you tax.
There might not be a formalparty system, but you have
candidate ABC, okay?
And ABC is an honest man, andhe's a humanist, and he could be

(45:32):
a terrific leader for thecountry.
And candidate B, I don't know,he's pretty sneaky, and
candidate C, he might evenchange his mind.
But candidate C has a lot of alot of cashola.
He's in the advertising, he'she's in the face of the unwashed

(45:52):
masses 100, 1,000 times morethan candidates A and B.
Who are you gonna vote for?
I work in marketing.
Yes, you need to throw moneybehind something, usually, for
people even to know who the hellyou are.
Mind share is limited.
That is correct.

(46:14):
People don't have time, andpeople operate based on what's
in front of their senses.

SPEAKER_01 (46:20):
That is correct, and we're on the same page there.
I'm not disputing that.

SPEAKER_03 (46:24):
I uh again, I'm just asking you to differentiate
between the entrenched system,which we all agree is broken,
and the fairly corrupt systemthat exists right now of certain
candidates getting more moneythan others.
You eliminate the partyinfrastructure, but you still

(46:46):
have the same problem of moneyand special interest, and those
candidates with more fundinghaving a higher probability of
getting elected than those whodo not.
Uh well, let's candidates whoare more adroit at raising money
have a higher probability ofbeing elected than candidates
who might be less adept atfundraising, but might be better

(47:10):
candidates.

SPEAKER_01 (47:11):
Uh you you have a fair point there, but we need to
address that point on two orthree levels.
Uh let's address it at thepresidential level first.
Now that is where billions gointo the campaigns, and this is
where big money speaks volumes.

(47:32):
Because now you are goingnationwide.
Because you've got todifferentiate between
presidential contests and thelocal representative contest.

SPEAKER_03 (47:43):
I don't want to blow up your example, but they just
had a runoff in Texas for themidterms, yeah, and they spent
$100 million in Texas.
Yeah, okay.
So so right now that big moneyisn't just for El El Presidente,
it's it's coming down to thegrassroots level, especially for

(48:05):
key districts and midterm.

SPEAKER_01 (48:07):
Yes, yes, fair point.
So let's work on the on thedistrict and let's work on the
representatives.

SPEAKER_03 (48:14):
Anywhere that it's the same rules apply.
I don't see any differencebetween macro and micro with
this endemic problem ofdemocracy being destroyed from
within, mostly from marketingcontingencies, the human nature
that goes with voting for acandidate that you see on TV.

SPEAKER_01 (48:36):
Yeah.
Well, look, let me give you acouple of uh pointers here.
Uh it might not be directlyrelevant, but sometimes uh just
throwing money at somethingdoesn't get you results.
If the product is bad, if theproduct is bad, no matter how

(48:58):
you market it, it will not getthe results.

SPEAKER_03 (49:01):
Look at look at momdani in New York.
He had money, but he had a greatsocial media driven campaign.
He he he he won based oncharisma and great marketing.

SPEAKER_01 (49:16):
So that is a perfect example that money can be
beaten.
Now, but I want to come to themoney on an institutional level.
Look, going back to the uh goingback to the founding father's
quote that we can not restrictuh people's rights to organize

(49:38):
and spend money, that'santi-democratic because we are
Western liberal democracies.
However, what we can do and saywe're gonna tax our excessive
funding into politics becausethat's not funding a candidate,
that is buying political favors.

(49:59):
Look, you uh I wish I could sayto you, look, our capitalist
system is gonna run without themoney.
We're not talking aboutsocialism because that's dead
and buried uh may it rest inpeace.
We're talking about liberal freeeconomies where money will
always have influence.
Our objective is to minimizethat influence, and taxation of

(50:24):
that funding into politics isone way of doing it, and then
state help to even thebattlefield is another way of
doing it.
Uh but most importantly, we'vebeen uh thought that uh people
masses are ignorant, they don'tknow it, they don't understand

(50:45):
it.
But no matter how much money youput behind a candidate that is
anti-abortion, he's not gonnawin the vote of the person who
is pro-abortion.
So policies matter.
Policies matter, and when youlook at uh your candidate, a

(51:09):
yes, you've got to reach it, butultimately, no matter how they
paint that candidate, if he isuh in uh uh disagreement or
you're in disagreement with hispolicies or her policies, you're
not gonna vote for that person,no matter how much media uh
props them up.
So we are limiting the effect ofmoney on politics by dispersing

(51:33):
the power.
Whereas now it really hascaptured the money uh is
basically deciding what happenswith the governments.
Dispersing that power back tothe people, back to independent
representatives, creatingaccountability and having a

(51:53):
trust in people to say, well,look, everybody can choose a
right lawyer, right doctor, andthey can choose a right
representative.
We've got to trust people.

SPEAKER_03 (52:04):
I I'm with you, and this seems like, again, an
idealized solution and very muchoverdue and welcoming.
My my problem though is that itit seems to beg the question of
the endemic and systemicproblems of the two-party
infrastructure that you want tosweep away.

(52:25):
Because, you know, nature abhorsa vacuum, and uh, you know, and
marketing people abhor smallbudgets, and the unwashed masses
abhor boredom and confusion.
So you might destroy thetwo-party system and even bring

(52:45):
about certain changes, such asthis tax on funding, which is
intriguing, but it all it doesis lower the baseline because
everyone's taxed equally.
So if you've got more money, youhave more money that you could
sustain giving more because youcan endure the tax.

(53:07):
So I I I'm just trying to tryingto figure out how destroying the
the political system eliminatesthese endemic problems, which
have more to do with marketing,communication, human nature than
they do with party politics perse, because party politics are

(53:30):
fueled by these core humanfoundational biases and
inconsistencies.
So, for example, you brought upthat you know, policies walk,
right?
And and bullshit, you know,doesn't talk, right?
Because uh, you know, if if ifyou're opposed to abortion, then

(53:55):
there's no way you're gonna votefor any candidate who would who
would believe otherwise.
Well, look at the millions ofminority voters, especially
African-American men who swungto Donald Trump.
Historically, they were allDemocrats if they voted at all.
And the election might very wellhave been swung from these

(54:18):
minority groups whotraditionally have been
Democrat, and they were swung bythe agility and creativity of
Donald Trump to woo them to theRepublican side.
That that didn't have anythingto do with policy per se, and it
had to do with with creativityand and and balls, if you want

(54:46):
to put it that way.
He went for it.
He was in the McDonald'sdrive-thru, yeah, in the
McDonald's outfit.
He drove a garbage truck when hefelt that the the Democrats were
full of it, right?
He he created a pageant ofcampaigning where the policies

(55:07):
got all mixed up and ultimatelybecame irrelevant to the
campaign itself, and he won overmillions of people who
ostensibly were w voting againsttheir own interests.
That is correct.
This happens over and overagain.
I work in marketing where youtry to convince people who who

(55:29):
don't want what you're sellingto be unable to live without it.

SPEAKER_01 (55:34):
Yeah, look, the world will not change uh
instantly.
We are talking about evolutionrather than le revolution.
So just just let's let's breakuh kind of uh the the point
you've made.
Let's kind of delve deeper inand peel off layers here.

(55:57):
A lot of people currently feelpolitically homeless.
And that's why they've shiftedin droves from democ voting for
democrats to voting for Trump.
Why?
Because war in Gaza andslaughter in Gaza continued

(56:20):
under Joe Biden.
And guess what?
Could you guys have picked the aworst contender?
Camilla Harris, for God's sake.

SPEAKER_03 (56:34):
We could say that, but look at all the Muslims in
Dearborn, Michigan, who to yourpoint swung from Joe Biden, who
disappointed them by beingcomplacent about Gaza.
And then they voted for DonaldTrump, who in his first
administration rose to powerwith the Muslim ban.
Remember that?

(56:55):
Exactly.
So memories are short.
And I I like I like what you'restating though, which is like
you have nowhere to go.
So the enemy of my enemy is myfriend.
Exactly.
And and memories are short.
And now, you know, Trump isbombing the hell out of the
Middle East and his super prounilateral, unconditional

(57:18):
Israel.
So you know, surprise, surprise,not well.

SPEAKER_01 (57:24):
He he misled people because he he he even misled the
MAGA base.
That is true.
He's misled them.
He's misled them because he saidno more endless wars.

SPEAKER_03 (57:36):
Well, they're not saying it's endless, but he is
bombing the shit out of theMiddle East, that's for sure.

SPEAKER_01 (57:41):
Certainly, certainly.
I mean, look, the the the systemin Middle East is being propped
up by the Western, if you like,uh regimes, let's call it, or
the system, because that regimeor system does not represent the

(58:03):
American British people.
Because the donors and the uhthe the role of the big money
means that these uh lawmakers,these presidents, blue or red,
are acting in the best interestof the oil companies, military
industrial complex, and so onand so forth, and banks will

(58:26):
make money out of all thesethings.
So returning the power to peoplewill is the only way that we're
gonna uh end these wars becauseuh guess what?
It's regime changes, they'vedone it in Iran in 1953, when
the British when the Mossadakhad uh nationalized Iranian oil

(58:53):
and not uh allowed British tokind of uh take the advantages.
What happened?
CIA and MI5 have toppled a guyand they've installed Shahriza
Pelevi.

SPEAKER_03 (59:06):
Uh they um Americans don't understand that our legacy
with Iran is uh duplicitous anduh and quite quite nasty.
They they hate us, the Iranianshate us for good reason, and
this is for forgotten in thenarrative.

(59:27):
I'm not I'm not justifying it,but I'm just saying that you
bring up relevant history toconsider current events.

SPEAKER_01 (59:36):
I would like to qualify that point.
I don't believe Iranians hateAmericans or Americans.

SPEAKER_00 (59:42):
No, no, no, not not the middle class it is you know
it is the it is the system.

SPEAKER_01 (59:47):
Uh I do not like the clerics or the princes in the
Middle East.
That's not and that's not ademocratic system.
That's not that doesn't meanthat I'm anti any race or
origin.
I love America, I love Americanpeople, uh I love the country I
live in, Britain, and I thinkwe've got liberal uh freedom and

(01:00:13):
and so on and so forth.
And our ancestors had fought forthis uh freedom and liberty that
we have a duty to sustain andimprove.
So uh when it comes to MiddleEast, these uh uh families uh
that run countries are in theinterest of themselves and in

(01:00:35):
the interest of oil companiesand uh and and uh defense
companies.
So it's not in the best interestof the Middle Eastern people,
neither is in the best interestof the European or American
people.
Uh so I'm I'm with you.
We we started off with Trump andsaying, well, he actually misled

(01:00:55):
people and the system as it is.
Democrats let the voters down,so they moved on to Trump and
voted for the Republicancandidate.
He's got in power only, youknow, only to be a lot worse
than what Joe Biden is.
Uh so yes, you can blame themand say they've got short

(01:01:16):
memories, or you can say, Whatcan they do?
What would I do if I were intheir shoes?
What would you do if in the ifyou're in their shoes?
The options were you vote forKamala Harris, which was more of
the same, continuing with JoeBiden, or you would have this
right-wing person.

(01:01:36):
Uh, traditionally you didn'tvote for them, but he's saying
he's gonna end the war.
So you believe him and you votefor him.
Foolish, maybe.

SPEAKER_03 (01:01:47):
Well, I I think the motivator for these minority
folks who did flip was primarilyeconomic.
They saw Donald Trump on TV,he's the apprentice guy.
Yes.
Uh the pandemic uh had tons ofstimulus, but it precipitated a
horrible inflation, which ate upeveryone's checkbook.

SPEAKER_00 (01:02:10):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 (01:02:11):
And the economy overall wasn't doing as well as
everyone had hoped.
They weren't better off thanthey were.
And then speaking of memories,they remember before the
pandemic how things were, andthen before the pandemic was the
Trump administration.
And uh, well, let's give itanother whirl.
So I think it's primarilyeconomic.

(01:02:32):
To your point, there's only twochoices.
So, well, this sucks.
I'll just go for the other guy.
And it reinforces your pointthat our two-party system sucks.
It does.
Let me bring up another example,which is parliamentary
democracy, which is actuallymore prevalent than the American
binary system, right?

(01:02:54):
Uh most countries in Europe,Israel, uh, the list is long for
parliamentary democracies.
And here voters get more of achoice.
You have the Green Party, youhave the far-right radical
party, like in Germany, nowthey're like number two, right?

(01:03:14):
And then uh, and then you havethe fringes who precipitate the
need for coalition building inthe government.
You'll have a dominant party ortwo, but they have insufficient
leverage to really run thegovernment, and then they need
to collaborate and they need tonegotiate with these fringe

(01:03:36):
parties to create a coalition.
Again, Israel is a classicexample of that, but that in
Israel has ironically backfiredbecause the extreme right wing
now is disproportionatelypowerful in keeping Netanyahu in
power.
So the annexation of the WestBank, the treatment of the

(01:03:57):
Palestinians, the Gaza War, thedecimation of the territory.
Uh, clearly, they just want toannex the West Bank and kick the
Palestinians out of Gaza.
They say that out loud.
This isn't a radical state, yes.
And Netanyahu's subsistence asprime minister is dependent on

(01:04:18):
upholding this kind of policy.
So there you have aparliamentary democracy with
more options available tovoters, but um, but it could
very well lead to extremistpositions by one of this need to
negotiate.
It can be complicated.
Yes, so I just bring this upwhere you do give voters more

(01:04:38):
choice, but it doesn'tnecessarily lead to a more uh
you know liberal in the classicEnlightenment sense uh
government.
Uh and it could lead actually toeven more confusion.

SPEAKER_01 (01:04:51):
So I would I would I would like to I would like to
explain that point uh in moredetail because I've I I don't
think I've explained myselfclearly on that point.
Now there are some politicalscientists that advocate for
more parties in US.

SPEAKER_00 (01:05:13):
Yes.

SPEAKER_01 (01:05:13):
Uh that will be a disaster because party party
system uh and factions uh are adisaster.
The party system itself is adisaster.
I'll tell you for why.
You have two uh two scenarios,always always two scenarios,
whether it's Germany, France, uhIsrael, UK.

(01:05:34):
In the UK, we have uhpredominant two parties, then we
have the third party, liberals,we have the Greens and and so on
and so forth, but uhpredominantly so far is
changing, landscape is changing,but we had conservatives that
represented the upper classbusinesses, yeah, the and Tories
and and the Labour.

(01:05:56):
Now when David Cameron didn'tget a majority.
He formed a coalition.
He formed a coalition with LibDems, liberals.
Nick Clegg.
Now that was a disaster becausethey couldn't get a policy
through, because liberals wantedsomething totally different.
Conservatives wanted somethingtotally different.

(01:06:20):
And that did not work.
And coalition after a whiledisappeared.
Lib Dems have took a big hitbecause they've gone back on
their promises of notintroducing student loans, and
they've done it, so theirratings went down the palm.
Similar problems you'veexplained in Israel.

(01:06:41):
That a small group, a smallportion of the population can
have disproportionate influenceon the policy outcome.
And that's not a healthydemocracy.
That is not healthy democracy.
In France, you have a problem,they had three or four, even
five prime ministers changed.

(01:07:04):
So that is a total disaster.
On the opposite side, when youhave a strong government in UK,
when you have a strong electionmajority, you control the
parliament, you basically passany law that you want.
Now, party system is bad.

(01:07:25):
We agree on that.
But let's just kind of say howbad it is.
Hitler came to power through theNazi Party.

SPEAKER_03 (01:07:35):
He was elected, by the way.
Adolf Hitler was democraticallyelected.
That is correct.

SPEAKER_01 (01:07:48):
That is correct.
And look at what he'd end updoing because he had such a big
majority and such a power thathe was not contained or
controlled.
He started demolishing theinstitutions and he became the
dictator.

(01:08:09):
And we have a similar process inmany different countries.
But the one of the biggestatrocities, if not the biggest,
was committed by that AdolfHitler against the Jewish
people.
And the party system isindefensible.

(01:08:42):
It doesn't have to be that way.
It does not have to be that way.
Like the voting rights forwomen.
For 500 years, uh it took nearlyfive centuries, 450 plus years,
for UK to give full suffrage towomen.
It was 1928 or something that itfinally was given to women in
the United States, I believe,nearly two centuries after the

(01:09:06):
men had the suffrage.
So what might look radical now,i.e., doing away with parties,
when the time comes, it willjust look natural.
But here is a kicker.
When we mention coalition ofdifferent parties, it is very
different to the individualrepresentatives.

(01:09:31):
Because individualrepresentatives are independent
and accountable to theirconstituents when they come to
vote in the legislature for apolicy, be it abortion, be it
gun control, be it uh war,whatever it may be.
Each and every representativevote on his conscience, on his

(01:09:56):
promises, and on hisinstructions from his uh voters,
because if he doesn't listen tothem, he's gonna be kicked out
on the next election.
So here what we have is uhbasically uh policies that uh
command the majority uh of thepublic's opinion will pass

(01:10:21):
through as legislation, and theones that don't will fail
through or they will be uhamended to reflect uh the bigger
population.
So we the proposed system doesaway with extremism, everybody
will work around coalitionbuilding, right?
And I want to revisit uh thepoint you've made about uh

(01:10:45):
confusing the people.
We are not confusing the peoplewhen the president is out there
campaigning.
I know there's the role of bigmoney, we'll leave that aside
for a second.
But you are looking at his keypolicies that concern you.
You're not looking ateverything.

(01:11:05):
Same thing goes with the uhlocal representative, you're
looking at the key where thatperson stands on the key
policies.
If he's in tune with yourbeliefs, then you vote for that
person, and then you expect himto behave in the parliament or
in the Congress.
If he doesn't, then you have theright to punish him in the next

(01:11:27):
cycle of elections.
So the system may look radical,but I would call it natural
evolution of the democracy.

SPEAKER_03 (01:11:38):
I mean, you're you're it's a map territory
thing, right?
So the map is corrupt, it'sincreasingly ad hoc, it's been
institutionalized based onspecial interests and the
powerful and the wealthy.
And the territory in its essenceis a one-to-one correspondence

(01:12:01):
between the individual desireand wish and hope of the voter,
yeah, and that voice translatingseamlessly to representation in
government with thatindividual's best interests at
heart.
So, what you're trying to do iscreate a seamless connection

(01:12:24):
between the voter and theirdesire, their representative
person in the government, andthen the engines of legislation
which don't get fuzzy and misledand corrupted, and in a sense
perverted by big business, bigmoney, big interests.

(01:12:47):
So that that to me sounds noble.
It's just if I've been pushingback, it's just the the
mechanism and the logistics ofdoing that in a way where we
don't perpetuate the sameproblems that got us into this
mess in the first place.

SPEAKER_01 (01:13:06):
Indeed, indeed.
And it's a very valid point andvery valid concern.
Dispersing the power can only bea good thing.

SPEAKER_03 (01:13:17):
I would hope so, but it begs the question of two
things.
The one is the continued tyrannyof the majority.
So uh, you know, most mostdistricts in the United States
are purplish because you knowwe're increasingly polarized.
Some states are red as hell,like South Dakota is 99% Trump,

(01:13:43):
probably higher than that, andthen other states are are are
equally blue, you know, and thenmost of America is is some
variation of the purple.
You can't make everybody happyall the time.
So even if I if I have thatone-to-one correspondence
between my desire and and mycandidate, you know, my

(01:14:07):
candidate might not win in mydistrict.
So then that begs the questionof my desires and my rights
translating into the law of myland in a way that that is as
seamless as you as you envision.
I guess that's that's one of thebackstops of democracy by

(01:14:29):
nature.
You can't you can't haveeveryone happy.
Uh, but that's one problem.
And the other one is thejudiciary, which we haven't
talked about at all.
Yep.
Where where the judges, right?
The Congress makes the laws, thejudges interpret them and
enforce them.

(01:14:49):
And judges are appointed, andthey're often appointed through
party affiliation.
You have Republican judges, youhave Democrat judges.
Trump has done a great job ofpopulating the American
judiciary for generations,starting at the top with the

(01:15:10):
Supreme Court.
Yeah.
That's another factor whichbolsters your argument as to the
inherent failure of a two-partysystem or a party-driven system,
because it infuses bias withinthe courts, too.

SPEAKER_01 (01:15:24):
Indeed, indeed.
And that's a big, big scarything because founding fathers
have purposely uh split thepowers so that uh people's will
is not uh taken for granted andand and not used against people,
it's not captured as we seetoday.

(01:15:46):
So they had these prophecies.
So uh in in terms of judges,what I want to say is this as
Liliana Mason says, uh partieshave fused culture with
politics, and that's uh what'screated this polarization.

(01:16:11):
In fact, there is uh a researchthat Americans reds and blues
actually agree on hundred pluspoints.
Yeah, I believe it.
Yeah, they so so so we're not asuh uh social media and other
media makes it out to be.

(01:16:31):
These are the fringes that mediagets views on sensations.
Media is mainstream media isowned by the same elite uh that
control the narratives.
Uh we know, we know how manyjournalists had been kicked out.
Uh Tucker Carlson is one ofthem.

(01:16:53):
If you don't behave, you getkicked out.
So we know media is controlled.

SPEAKER_03 (01:17:00):
You you got Don Lemon on one side, you got
Tucker Carlson on the other.
I want to see Don Lemon andTucker Carlson do one of those
wrestling matches.
Wouldn't that be would that befun?

SPEAKER_01 (01:17:19):
Yeah, to the to the to the point, what we are
saying, uh this the simplemessage that I want to get
across, we see it as a radicalor problematic thing.
We're trying to pick holes in itbecause all our lives and our
parents' lives, we've been fed acertain narrative.

(01:17:41):
So that narrative will changeonce representation is back with
the people where it belongs, andthen polarization will not
evaporate overnight, butgradually, gradually we will be
discussing policies, not tryingto get one over each other like

(01:18:05):
parties do.
And then judiciary willhopefully in time be appointed
on the basis of merit ratherthan their political
orientation.

SPEAKER_03 (01:18:19):
Yeah, I again in principle I love your concept
and everything, everything whichyou've set up for your book, you
know, breaking the chains ofdemocracy, I think is is lovely,
is wonderful.
And your core precepts are arevalid, they're they're hard to

(01:18:40):
argue with.

(01:19:10):
The problems that I've beensharing with you, though, are
more tactical and they're morelogistics, and the devil, as
they say, is in the details.
So you could have the best idea,and its implementation could
precipitate or perpetuate someof the issues that you had

(01:19:32):
before.
And I would be intrigued to seeyour idea pulled through in
terms of concreterecommendations for its
implementation.
And in that spirit, could wespend maybe just a few minutes?
Let's imagine that you are likeWilly Wonka or the Wizard of Oz,

(01:19:55):
right?
You're meeting peacing, grandemperor of reality, and you
could, you know, wave your wandor salute, and your system is is
is is implemented or it's begun.
How how would this actuallymanifest?

(01:20:18):
And I'm I'm not even talkingabout dislodging an entrenched
system with trillions of dollarsand all these special interests.
It's it's like a revolution justto make this happen.
But even logistically, whatwould this look like?
Let's pretend that you wave yourwand for the let's go with the

(01:20:43):
presidential election of 2028.
What would this look like?

SPEAKER_01 (01:20:49):
Well, let's start with the uh basic assumption.
Let's say we've electedindependent representatives.

SPEAKER_03 (01:21:00):
So there would be numerous Bernie Sanders style
independents, exactly, and eachone would come with a profile.
Correct.
Five to ten key issues thatthey're public about,
transparent about, with a tacitpromise that if they would be
elected, that's the kind oflegislation that they would be

(01:21:22):
gunning for.

SPEAKER_01 (01:21:23):
And we can hold them accountable to that.

SPEAKER_03 (01:21:26):
Okay.

SPEAKER_01 (01:21:28):
And those people we will know who's funded their
campaign.
So if there is a specialinterest group that I'm against,
let's say I'm against wars andhe's got money directly or
indirectly from the armsmanufacturers, I will know that.
That will influence my votingbehavior.

(01:21:49):
So not only that we know theirpolicies, top priority policies,
top 10 policies, we also knowwho's funding their campaign
above$100.

SPEAKER_03 (01:22:00):
Where where do we know it?
Is it you know, and I hate to bethis tactical, but it does boil
down to you know, these unwashedmasses getting information.
Like how do you make this thisthis tumultuous weltering of
information, however relevantand impactful, uh manifest for

(01:22:23):
the public in a way that'sactionable?

SPEAKER_01 (01:22:26):
Yeah, well, one of the uh you know, one one simple
solution could be that uh, youknow, we have we have various
apps, we have varioustechnological apps or websites.
Let's say you have a works andpensions uh app or whatever it
is to pay your taxes, to fileyour year-end taxes for the

(01:22:50):
government.
And and that's not an app youand I created, that's a
government app that's availableto every citizen uh in their
area to go in and look at thatapp and say who's funding my
candidates in my area and whatis their top policies.
They can read about them, topten policies.
So it's a central bit ofinformation, one way of doing

(01:23:12):
it, is available to the publicwho is uh wanting to go and have
a look at it.
Admittedly, some people will beignorant and they will not even
look at it.
Yeah, well, well, that is a thatthat is debatable because uh I
think without a proper surveyand and getting the numbers and

(01:23:35):
percentages right, I think it'svery difficult to put an
estimated number on it.
But there is scientificobservations that say 10% of the
population, roughly 10% of thepopulation of any population, no

(01:23:55):
matter what, are compassionate.
The other 10% of the populationare evil, no matter what.

SPEAKER_02 (01:24:06):
Yes, the bell, it's the bell curve, right?

SPEAKER_01 (01:24:08):
Correct, yes.

SPEAKER_02 (01:24:09):
And and the 80% in the middle, they follow the
system don't give a shit.

SPEAKER_01 (01:24:15):
Well, they that's one way of putting it, yes.

SPEAKER_00 (01:24:18):
They follow the system.

SPEAKER_03 (01:24:21):
So so far you got me, but intent is one thing and
being informed is another,right?
Correct, and then taking actionis yet another.

SPEAKER_01 (01:24:31):
Yeah, correct.
Well, look, people are notpolitical scientists, but if you
decimate the information intotop ten policies and who's
funded them, they will know whothey want to vote for, just like
they know how to pick a lawyer,just know how they want to pick
a hospital or a doctor.

(01:24:53):
So now let's move on to electedrepresentatives moving into the
House of Representatives.
And these are Bernie Sanders ofthis world from every
constituency.
Let's say there's 430, 450representatives to get the

(01:25:14):
presidential candidate.
Anybody can in line with the USconstitution with your
constitution, anybody can uh uhput themselves forward for the
presidential candidate.
But what we are doing, we'redoing round of voting, they need
to get minimum backing from therepresentatives who represent

(01:25:34):
the wider population.
So once they have uh enough uhsupport from representatives on
behalf of the population or thepeople, they will then go around
of debates, present theirpolicies, present their running

(01:25:54):
mates, and through round ofvoting in the House of
Representatives, let's say, theywill then narrow it down to two
finalists with their runningmates.
The winning ticket now becomesthe president, no parties
involved, no reds or no blues.

(01:26:15):
You're looking at their toppolicies, just like the local
representatives.
We you know, one candidate maysay, Look, we're gonna close our
borders, the other one mightsay, look, we're gonna have a
free movement of people.
One will say we're for promo uhabortion, the other one says we
are anti-abortion.

(01:26:35):
You'll have their top tenpledges as well.
Like we do with the parties.
We know what the reds arestanding for, and we know what
the blues are standing for.
So we know what Trump stood for,and we knew what Kamala Harris
stood for.
So we'll have that samescenario.
But no parties.
We've elected those people, thewinning ticket has become the

(01:26:56):
executive branch, formed theircabinet, and uh we call it
ministers, but you call itsecretaries.
Uh, and the opposition ismandated by public to do the
scrutiny, to educate otherindependent MPs on legislation.
So the whole system puts thepower back with people where it

(01:27:23):
really belongs.
That's the meaning of democracy.

SPEAKER_03 (01:27:27):
In principle, I I love it.
And uh, you know, if you couldwave your your wand, it would it
would be a a fascinatingexperiment, especially in in the
United States.

SPEAKER_01 (01:27:41):
It's it's an idea, it is open for debate for uh
scholars, for people,politicians, yourself, myself,
public.
We can we need to debate it.
This is not a writtenprescription that solves every
problem, details can be Workedout based on cultural and

(01:28:03):
historic systems respecting theconstitution.

SPEAKER_03 (01:28:08):
How did you get here?
Can you tell us just a littlebit about your not your personal
life per se, but your trajectoryas a businessman and how you
arrived at publishing this book?

SPEAKER_01 (01:28:23):
Cool.
Sure.
The starting point has been mydisappointment with the prime
ministers and the parties I'vevoted for.
I voted for Tony Blair, I wasdisappointed with the Iraq war.
I voted for David Cameron, I wasdisappointed with him.
So I've voted for Reds and theBlues based on the comments.

SPEAKER_03 (01:28:47):
You got Brexit.

SPEAKER_01 (01:28:49):
Yes, exactly.
So our lives have got worse andworse and worse.
Not got better, it's got worse.
So that got me thinking to say,well, hang on a minute.
The left and liberals aresupposed to be anti-war.
What is Tony Blair doing withGeorge Bush, who's a Republican?

(01:29:12):
And they've got this sex-updossier that there is weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq.
Well, Scott Ritter, weaponsinspector, had been and
inspected, and they've said thatthey've accounted for 90 odd
percent, 95%, 98% of theseweapons being destroyed.

(01:29:35):
So it was just a precursor to gointo Iraq.
So that was the turning pointthat I've said we're not in a
democracy.
We're not in a democracy.
This is not millions floodedLondon streets and across the
globe.
But yet public will, people'swill, was ignored.

(01:29:57):
People were dragged by thepolice, uh, thrown into the
cells.
They said, well, hang on aminute, this is more like a
dictatorship than a democracy.
So that was the point that I'vegot to kind of uh read about the
democracy.
And the second turning point wasreading the federalist papers.

SPEAKER_02 (01:30:19):
Alright.

SPEAKER_03 (01:30:21):
So federalist papers my people.
Yes.
Yeah.
Even though I'm a Hungarian uhemigre or I'm a first generation
American, my parents areHungarian.
Honestly, I've been to Chicago,I've been to New York.
That's where I was born,Chicago.
I'm I'm an anchor baby.

(01:30:42):
Anchor baby.
I just got dropped there.

SPEAKER_01 (01:30:46):
Uh love the culture, love the country, love the big
portions, but that aside, onceI've read The Founding Fathers,
and they grappled with factions,and I said, haha.
That's when the moment droppedand said, Parties are the
problem for democracy.
Because the world they leftbehind, Europe and Britain had

(01:31:08):
corrupt parties, had all theseissues.
So they've tried to kind ofcreate a system that will not
fall victim to these factions.
But unfortunately, their Westfears were realized.
So as we approach the 250thanniversary of American
democracy, it is probably timefor the Americans to think about

(01:31:34):
how we can make democracy moreresponsive and put the power
back with people.

SPEAKER_03 (01:31:40):
Well, amen.
Says this agnostic American tothat.
I I think that that it'swelcoming.
Uh and I think your thesis is uhis wonderful.
Thank you.
And if I've been pushing back,I've been pushing back only in
terms of logistics and thepossibility of making it happen

(01:32:01):
in the real world andconscientiously trying to avoid
falling into the same traps thatgot us into this mess in the
first place.
Yeah, no, agree.
So very good.
I have one fairly cynicalobservation, and I'm just
curious what you think.
You you come at this entiresituation, you know, your love

(01:32:22):
of the Federalist Pers, and youhave a prima facie kind of
worldview here where democracyequals justice.
It's almost platonic, and youquoted the Greeks earlier, too,
that if you give power to thepeople, then that you're
automatically going to end upwith a just system.

(01:32:42):
Uh here's counterpoint.
Uh, when the internet first tookoff, there were bold predictions
that it would do exactly whatyou're advocating your
democratization schemata woulddo.
That if you give everyone avoice, that if you empower every
internet user with thecapability of not only being a

(01:33:03):
consumer of information, but apublisher, that you're gonna
lead to information correctingitself, you're gonna have this
engine of truth, this engine ofdemocratized humanity.
And by making everything global,instantaneous, transparent,
you're gonna bring freedom tothe world.

(01:33:26):
And as we've seen, that visionhas not played itself out.
It's almost Newtonian.
For every action, there's areaction, for every kernel of
truth, there is a halo, almost atsunami of misinformation.
That when you empowerindividuals with a voice,
they're gonna use that voice intheir own interests.

(01:33:48):
And their own interests, youknow, their 10%, 80%, 10% bell
curve, you're gonna have a very,very vocal 10% wreaking havoc
and mayhem because they've beenempowered to do so.
Uh, speaking as an Americanfamiliar with my own country, I

(01:34:09):
love America too.
But I feel that the core behindour two-party system goes beyond
the biases that you've mentionedand described and have something
fundamental to do with attitudesthat are here.
You have a group of Americanswho believe that America should

(01:34:29):
be white, Christian, male, andheterosexual.
That is America.
And then you have another groupof people who believe in America
as the globe's melting pot ofhumanism, equality, fairness,

(01:34:49):
and they look at the governmentas an arbiter of many of these
virtues.
Yeah.
And this has been fundamental toour history throughout our
history, and thisDemocrat-Republican divide and
the polarization that hasevolved to me as an American

(01:35:10):
growing up in America, the good,the bad, and the ugly, our
current polarized climate seemsto be representative of this
kind of duality.
And I'm curious what you thinkabout it because you, in a
sense, are bringing the internetto the world of politics.

(01:35:30):
And I'm wondering if there'shave you ever thought about this
backfiring?
That that if you give everyone avoice, you know, might might it
end up radicalizing us as muchas it frees us up.

SPEAKER_01 (01:35:49):
Uh well, start off with the internet as you've as
you said, as an example, andfreedom of information.
Now what we're talking about isnot really parallel to that,
because not only the internet,now we have AI, the fake, deep

(01:36:11):
fakes, and so on and so forth.
And yeah, it's even moreintense.
Fake news.
Uh not to quote Donald Trumphere, but uh uh you know
unverified uh news that peoplesay, and so on and so forth.
So that became a chaos.

(01:36:31):
The system we look at is uhvery, very different to that
because we are not sendingmillions into the house of
representatives, we arepreserving the same
constitution, we are preservingthe same representation, we are
giving people power to vote, andthat's about it.

SPEAKER_03 (01:36:54):
So people have that power now, they can vote in and
out, apart, but but Metten,they're choosing candidates,
correct.
Okay, so just like in Germany,one aspect of a parliamentary
democracy that I always foundfascinating is that it gives
much more transparency as to thewill of the people than uh than

(01:37:17):
a two-party system.
Here we have the Democrats andRepublicans, and the dividing
line is 49%, 51%.
Yeah right?
Either way, it's only a one ortwo percent sway, especially in
the presidential election.
It's never, it's almost nevermore than that, right?
So there's no there's notransparency.
We don't get to see the the lifeblood, if you will, of America.

(01:37:41):
But if you look at aparliamentary democracy, for
example, Germany, and you seethe rise of the radical right,
yeah, the extremist right inGermany, okay?
So you don't need much of animagination to to figure out
what's going on there.
And because it's it's a fringeparty that becomes mainstream

(01:38:04):
over time, that is an indicatorof where that society generally
is moving.
That is correct.
And when and when you create asystem that you're advocating in
your book and your model oftransparency and alignment
between the individual andpolicy and candidates and

(01:38:27):
governance, then you're openingup a society to this kind of
deep segmentation.
In a sense, you're personalizingCongress in ways that would be
unprecedented now.
And my question, lastly, is arewe gonna get a lot of the

(01:38:51):
ugliness that is that is thrownunder the rug in the same way
that you describe this two-partysystem being bad, but in this
sense might be might be betterfor us societally.

SPEAKER_01 (01:39:07):
Well, let me try to answer that question for you.
Now, uh human nature will notchange overnight.
We know that.
We know that it's not gonnachange because we uh it's part
of nature and nurture.
Now you've started off by sayinguh a part of the American

(01:39:31):
population uh wants America tobe white, Christian,
heterosexual.
And the other part are male,yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Now take the religion aspect ofthat.
If those people were born inIsrael, they'll be Jewish.

(01:39:53):
If they were born uh in SaudiArabia, they'll be Muslim.
So uh the community that you'reborn into, your schooling, your
parenting, your environmentshapes your beliefs and your
personalities.
Now uh what you will find isthat big cosmopolitan cities

(01:40:13):
tend to be more liberal becausethey see different cultures and
different people and they seethat as a a richness.
But uh what democracy means isthat uh it needs to uh the uh it
it needs uh to reflect thesociety.

(01:40:35):
No matter how extreme thosepoints of view may look to me or
you.

SPEAKER_03 (01:40:43):
But that's my point though, which is right now our
two-party system hides a lot ofthe ugliness of America.
And if and if you create asystem where where everyone's
will is represented, we have wehave Nazis, we have fascists, we
have bigots, we have all sortsof what you and I would consider

(01:41:07):
unsavory segments, but they'resubstantial enough in the
population to be givenrepresentation in your model.

SPEAKER_01 (01:41:18):
That is correct.
My belief is that you cannot,unless it resorts to violence,
you cannot please people'sbeliefs and thinking as long as
it remains peaceful.
Nor should you.

(01:41:39):
Yeah, correct.

SPEAKER_03 (01:41:41):
Let it rip.
I'm not saying we should controlit, I'm just saying that you
have this Pollyanna vision ofdestroying parties and and a
democracy being 100%representative, and I'm just
saying that that could be aPandora's box of chaos, but with

(01:42:01):
it, but with it, because the theword you've chose the party
system hides it.

SPEAKER_01 (01:42:09):
It does not eliminate it, it merely hides
it.
Good point.
Yes.
So what we are saying is that ifyou look at one constituency and
they've elected this far radicaluh whatever the description is,

(01:42:34):
because it could be communist,it could be fascist, whatever it
may be, either end of thespectrum.
Those are not gonna be in themajority because that's not
majority of the public.
That is fringe, and yes, theywill have uh maybe one or two

(01:42:55):
representatives, but that willnot determine the majority in
the legislature.

SPEAKER_03 (01:43:03):
But look at look at Twitter X.
You've got fringe groups whostir the pot, and and they're
disproportionately strong intheir voice and in their
influence, and they just theythey basically you know shit in

(01:43:25):
the punch bowl, right?
The whole culture on X sucksbecause it's you know a wild,
wild west.
Now, I'm not saying that that'snecessarily bad, and maybe the
libertarian me is like just letit loose.
You you should not control freespeech.
But all I'm citing is thathistorically, when you remove

(01:43:48):
guardrails and empower theindividual, this Pollyanna
vision of truth, beauty, andjustice being an emergent
quality of this maelstrom hastime and time again been proven
otherwise.

SPEAKER_01 (01:44:07):
Well, that may be so, but it does not apply to the
proposed model.
Because what we are not doing,we are not going to direct
democracy and a referendum forpeople to vote on every issue.
These people, no matter howradical, extreme they may be,

(01:44:30):
they are a percentage of acommunity in different uh
states.
So the people who becomerepresentative are the people
who command these candidates,are the people who command the
broadest support from thevoters.

(01:44:50):
So our only way they can have uhthe uh representative status is
uh for the whole or majority ofthe constituency to vote for
these people.
But I don't believe 80% ofAmericans are described in
either extreme groups.

(01:45:12):
So what you will end up with 80%of the representatives will have
common sense and it'll be nodifferent, no different in the
way that current representativesare.
I mean, let me kind of uh make areference to uh Lindsay Graham.

SPEAKER_03 (01:45:35):
Lindsay I mean people in Washington they uh
okay, yeah, I'll let you go.
I have some Lindsay Lindsaygossip, but you go ahead.

SPEAKER_01 (01:45:49):
So the curated list of candidates filtered by the
party system is a massiveproblem, and not being
accountable to people is theproblem.
We're not saying open thefloodgates and let people decide
every policy, we're saying letpeople decide who they want to
represent, who want them to betheir representative, and we

(01:46:16):
want an open market of decentcandidates coming forward and
trustable candidates who areless corruptible to be out
there, and the legislatureshould consist of what the
population reflects thepopulation, so everybody airs
their opinion, and everybody canvote or vote vote in or out

(01:46:39):
their representative.
So why why are you picking onLindsey Graham?
Well, some of his views arequite radical.

SPEAKER_03 (01:46:47):
Uh yeah, but Lindsey Graham of all people is the most
opportunistic politician of ourera.
When when January 6th happened,and and and the riots were
there, and the police officerswere wounded, suicides, people
were hurt, the woman was shotand killed.
Uh Lindsay Graham was out therecondemning the president, saying

(01:47:11):
it's gone too far, and Trump wasdone.

SPEAKER_00 (01:47:14):
Right.

SPEAKER_03 (01:47:14):
And then the second Lindsay sniffed MAGA part two,
he was all in.
Now, the thing about Lindsay ishe he he he just wants to be
important.
He has said that out loud ininterviews, and it's true.
He wants to play golf with thepresident of the United States.

(01:47:36):
That president could be BillClinton, or it could be Donald
Trump.
It doesn't matter.
Lindsay is gonna be out thereplaying golf with the president.
Now, in order for that tohappen, and this is part of my
point that I was bringing upearlier, is that raw opportunism
is fueled by what?

(01:47:58):
Popular support.
Okay, so Lindsay is popular,Lindsay gets re-elected, and
Lindsay can smell and and figureout which way the wind is
blowing, and that keeps Lindsayin power.

(01:48:20):
And you're saying that some ofhis ideas are radical.
Well, he's representing hisconstituents.

SPEAKER_01 (01:48:27):
Well, the reference I was making maybe my bad, I
should use UK, which is mycountry, uh, as a reference
because I don't know anywherenear as much as you do about
American politics.

SPEAKER_03 (01:48:41):
But well, I'm just saying that you know, equating
radical positions with um withattitudes that go against
popular opinion is is erroneous.
Well, there are many popularopinions which are which are
from your vantage point radical.

SPEAKER_01 (01:49:00):
Yes.
The point to not miss herethough is this Lindsey Graham is
there for the points you'vemade.
Uh I'm not gonna repeat those,but also he's got the party
favor, he's got the backing,he's got the funding coming
through.
That's why because he wins.

(01:49:22):
He's exactly he's there.
Because he's a winner, Lindsayis a winner.
Absolutely.

SPEAKER_03 (01:49:28):
I mean, I don't want debate to kind of a shift in his
uh he's got that southern stuffgoing on, and you know, he's
charming, and even when hechanges his mind as the wind
blows, you're just okay.

SPEAKER_01 (01:49:42):
Absolutely, absolutely.
But what um the point I wastrying to make under the current
system, even if his constituentswanted to punish him, they
couldn't.
They'll need to punish theparty, and that means letting
the opposition through.

SPEAKER_03 (01:49:58):
And that is Uh primary his ass.

SPEAKER_01 (01:50:02):
But primary his ass means a lot of money, and
somebody with deep pockets needsto do that.

SPEAKER_03 (01:50:11):
In that sense, it's incontrovertible.
I I I agree with you.

SPEAKER_01 (01:50:15):
But if I was to shift the debate to UK, we had
Boris Johnson, what a buffoon tobecome the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER_03 (01:50:22):
So we must that was the era of Trump 1.0.
And that that was uh but the UKand America were on the same
wavelength throughout this wholetime, right?
And Brexit, Brexit was similar.
That was your MAGA, MAGAmovement.
Yes.
It was it was UK first.

SPEAKER_01 (01:50:40):
Yes, UK first, exactly.
Brexit was UK first.

SPEAKER_03 (01:50:44):
And Cameron made the existential mistake of doing a
referendum on it, confident thatit would lose, in in the same
way that the Americans dismissedthe viability of Donald Trump.

SPEAKER_02 (01:50:57):
Same thing.

SPEAKER_01 (01:50:58):
Yes.
Correct.
Agree.
The Brexit uh was again, withoutboring your listeners, was
fueled by Nigel Farage takingvotes from the conservatives.
So they wanted to shut him outby going to public and shutting
down.
Put it back to the back.

SPEAKER_03 (01:51:16):
And Nigel, by the way, going back to this
extremist, extremist model, wasan extremist with a very loud
voice.

SPEAKER_01 (01:51:24):
Yes.
But now he's formed the ReformUK party and he's getting very I
love these names.

SPEAKER_03 (01:51:31):
The names are built-in euphemisms.

SPEAKER_01 (01:51:33):
Yes, yes, yes.
But what I want to uh get acrossare party politics, charismatic
leaders are a trap.
Power belongs to people, that'swhere it should rest.
And like we've said, we we'renot gonna create chaos.
The model will not create chaosbecause we are currently casting

(01:51:58):
our votes to choose arepresentative.
All we are doing is having amore choice of representatives,
and we're having the ability topunish them when they don't do
what we ask of them.

SPEAKER_03 (01:52:13):
Great, hallelujah! I think that's a great way to cap
it.
Thank you.
Which is uh which is a lovelyand fun and engaging
conversation with uh MeetonPekin.
Thank you.
And in his book, Breaking theChains of Democracy, which is
democracies held back, folks, byour antiquated, atavistic,

(01:52:36):
corrupt party politics system.
And if you empower individualcandidates who transparently
reveal their key policies, andthen we create a system devoid
of party politics that can thenhold them accountable with
transparency related to theirfunding, too.

(01:52:57):
We can truly bring democracy tothe United States and the world.
You should you should uhcopyright your system and then
franchise it.
Make it international.
Eloquently put.
Thank you.
We're gonna put description ofthe book and a link to get it.

(01:53:20):
The book is out now, right?
Is it out already?
Tomorrow morning is out.
Tomorrow morning.
Oh, if this is a launch party.
Yes, all right.
I'm gonna I'm gonna get thispodcast, at least the audio
version of this podcast outtoday.
Awesome.
So the so the link will be therefor the launch party for your
book.
Video I gotta I gotta edit alittle bit, but I'll get the

(01:53:41):
audio out for you, Meeken, andthen you can have the launch
party.
And I wish you well, and uh I Ilove the sentiment behind it,
and I hope more and more peoplestart to embrace this idea and
figure out some of the mookycriticisms or at least
observations aboutimplementation and how you know

(01:54:03):
the the devil is in the details,right?

SPEAKER_01 (01:54:06):
Most definitely, and like we said, we're not it's not
a revolution, it's not a radicalchange, it is natural evolution
of democracy.
Power belongs to people.

SPEAKER_03 (01:54:20):
Represent, and this is coming from two
libertarian-esque guys, we'renot like radical hippie lefties
here, right?
We want less government, but wewant fair government, we want
efficient government, and wewant government devoid of big
interests and corruption.

SPEAKER_01 (01:54:39):
Very, very true.
Yes, indeed.

SPEAKER_03 (01:54:41):
So 100% like, comment, share.
Thank you for listening to theBald Ambition podcast.
I'm your bald host, MookieSpitz, and the one with all the
ambition has been Meekin withthis awesome idea for zero party
politics in our politics.

(01:55:02):
Thanks for listening.
And we can bring you back in sixmonths, a year, see how it goes,
and then you could feature youryour sequel.

SPEAKER_01 (01:55:10):
Thank you.
We'll look forward to that.
Look forward to it.

SPEAKER_03 (01:55:13):
Thank you so much.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Hey Jonas!

Crime Junkie

Betrayal Weekly

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Breaking Democracy’s Chains: Metin Pekin Challenges Party Politics

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Hey Jonas!

Crime Junkie

Betrayal Weekly

All Episodes

Breaking Democracy’s Chains: Metin Pekin Challenges Party Politics

Hey Jonas!