Breaking Democracy’s Chains: Metin Pekin Challenges Party Politics

In this 62nd episode of Bald Ambition, Mookie sits down with author Metin Pekin, whose provocative book Breaking Democracy’s Chains argues that modern Western democracies—especially the United States and the United Kingdom—have drifted far from genuine representation. Voters feel increasingly powerless, institutions appear captured by money and party machinery, and elections often feel like choosing between “different managers of the same system.”

Pekin believes the culprit is the political party itself. And if it’s broke, don’t fix it—break it completely and rebuild it

Drawing on the Federalist Papers, historical political theory, and contemporary disillusionment with politics, he proposes a radical but deceptively simple idea: remove political parties from the ballot entirely. Candidates would run as independents, campaign on a short list of clearly stated policy commitments, and be elected through ranked-choice voting. Once in office, representatives would be accountable directly to their constituents—not to party leaders, donors, or ideological factions.

The result, Pekin argues, would be a political system driven by policy coalitions rather than party loyalty, where lawmakers form alliances issue by issue and where voters can finally hold representatives accountable for broken promises.

But can it actually work? Mookie pushes hard on the logistics:

• How do voters navigate a flood of information without party “brands”?
• Doesn’t money still dominate elections even without parties?
• Would independent candidates simply recreate factions under new names?
• And what happens when the unfiltered will of the electorate reveals uncomfortable truths about society itself?

The conversation becomes a wide-ranging exploration of democracy’s structural weaknesses—from Citizens United and campaign finance, to coalition politics in parliamentary systems, to the role of media, technology, and human psychology in shaping political behavior.

This episode transcends partisan politics by upending its core structure to reveal how the system itself is broken, and what it might take to rebuild it. If you’ve ever felt politically homeless, frustrated with the two-party duopoly, or curious about bold alternatives to modern democracy, this conversation will challenge your assumptions. Check out Mekin's book!

The Guest

Metin Pekin studied Political Economy at the University of Greenwich before becoming a serial entrepreneur, founding and growing several companies from the ground up. His decades in business gave him a front-row view of how economic power often shapes political outcomes.

Observing politics over time, Pekin noticed a recurring pattern: regardless of which party came to power, many fundamental policies remained unchanged. Inequality continued to deepen, surveillance expanded, whistleblowers faced punishment, and military interventions persisted. Reformers who attempted meaningful change were frequently sidelined, while party structures tightly controlled who could compete for power.

His Book

In Breaking Democracy’s Chains, Pekin argues that genuine democratic accountability may require rethinking one of modern politics’ most entrenched assumptions: the central role of permanent political parties.

https://www.metinpekin.com/

Transcript

SPEAKER_03 0:01

Hello and welcome to the All the Ambition Podcast. I'm your very followed host, and the one with all the ambition today is Mr. Meton Peacan. The author of Breaking Democracy's Chains. Welcome to the podcast today, Meton.

SPEAKER_01 0:24

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 0:31

It's my pleasure. I've had various guests on, especially over the past month or so, addressing the problem of democracy. Now, this might sound like an oxymoron to some people. Democracy seems like almost this teleological or Hegelian ideal that we have arrived at. Representation from the nation. But we have problems now, and the problems seem systemic, endemic. Everything from polarization to corruption to bias leads to a state where individual voters feel disempowered, disenfranchised, frustrated. And you offer what some might consider a radical solution to many of the problems facing our electoral system. Can you give us a quick background as to what you're proposing and how you got there?

SPEAKER_01 1:44

Certainly, certainly. Well, look, I think it's thank you again for having me. It's very timely. And uh those people who feel disenfranchised are not alone. There are across the globe, across the Western democracies, most people feel the same. And I think we need to start with the uh role of money in politics. That's a massive, massive influence. Basically, what we have is a party system that we have been told that is inseparable from democracy. But nothing could be further away from the truth. Parties let alone being true representatives of the people, they are gatekeepers of the power. They filter candidates, ideas, policies, before even it gets in front of the people. So very current and I want to be bang in the middle neither left nor right because I think that is a trap. But if you look at if you look at the current uh conflict with Iran, about forty people, forty percent of the American people oppose the war. Only around 20%, according to Ipsos uh uh survey are in support of it. So an overwhelming majority of American people are against the war, against conflicts. And in fact, President Trump was elected on the promise of ending endless wars. And yet you had votes through the Congress that does not limit president's uh powers. The war continues. So there is a puzzle here because people don't want it, yet the administration continue with the major issues. Now, this is not just Trump. We had it under Biden, we had it under Obama, we had it under Clinton. So there is a problem. There is a problem that uh the governments of our countries, UK, US, and other European countries, are not responsive to public will. Democracy in a simplet in its simplest term means power belongs to people and those who exercise it are accountable to people. Yet in real life that is not happening. Yes, we go to the polling station, yes, we cast our votes, but we're casting our votes for different managers of the same system. It's not a real choice, it's not a real democratic choice.

SPEAKER_03 5:11

That's demonstrably true. There's various factors. So you mentioned money, the Supreme Court, and what I was hinting at was the citizen in the United case, which empowered special interest groups to basically flood elections with money.

SPEAKER_01 5:28

Exactly right, exactly right, Moki. Now you now kind of hit the nail on the head there. So money corrupts politics. And when the floodgates opened that uh money could be poured into politics, the problem becomes the party system because these uh special interest groups people with the money who invest into the politics and politicians are obviously have uh politicians' ear, they form policies, they literally control the direction of that policy, and they filter people who share their views who are gonna be serving their interests rather than the interest of the public. So we're on the same page there.

SPEAKER_03 6:31

Money brought up another issue, too, which is even the primary process in a rigidly two-party system. I had another guest, Tom Joseph of America's Main Street Party.

SPEAKER_00 6:48

Yep.

SPEAKER_03 6:49

And he had developed a technological application which enabled and empowered voters to get involved in the primary process a lot earlier than they normally do. I had another guest, Ramon Perez, of the Digital Democracy Project. And he talks about giving voters transparency to the bills that are being considered and acted on and holding politicians accountable. So these gentlemen offer technological, if not remedies, at least uh some massaging of these issues that you bring up. Uh, how does your solution differ from these interim steps to give voters more transparency? What is what is at the heart of your recommendation for transforming a system which just about everybody admits is broken?

SPEAKER_01 7:50

Okay, so digital solution is gonna improve things. That is not uh that is not disputed. But we are talking about something that's fundamentally wrong here, something fundamentally wrong with the party system. Now, if you go back to the founding fathers, they grappled with the factions effectively who became political parties. And Federalist number 10, James Madison, uh was very, very, very concerned with along others, uh, about the factions, that one day they will put their own interests before the interest of the citizens and interest of the republic. However, they did not want to limit them or ban them because that would come across as anti-democratic. Now, the problem in itself is with the party system. No matter whether you how you patch it, that will be a plaster uh on the wound. You you're not fixing the key problem. And that key problem is institutionalized by a party system that fuels division and polarizes the nation. As uh Liliana Mason in her great book Uncivil Agreement puts it across parties have fused political identity with the cultural identity and created what she calls a mega identity. So it ends up that now left sees right as an existential threat and vice versa, right sees the left as existential threat. That is not the case. That is not the case because we are pitted against each other on cultural matters. Whereas when it comes to the key issues of representation, surveillance, wars, cuts to public services, you couldn't get a cigarette paper between them. Wars continued under both administrations, Republicans and the Democrats. So whether it's blue or red, surveillance continues on both parties, and civil liberties are being uh chipped away. So uh just uh having a digital uh means of controlling your uh primaries or or or having a better transparency at the primaries isn't gonna solve the problem because uh fundamentally uh as long as uh factions are recognized as uh entities that raise money that uh basically act as gatekeepers of power by filtering people and ideas, then we've got a problem. Now imagine these digital platforms and you've got a representative that's selected through 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 two gentlemen came up within our two-party system, and their their approach was to see what they can do within the existing boundaries. But indeed, all right. I'm I'm with you. I'm with you. There's these fundamental issues. Very few Americans will disagree with you that we've got fundamental issues, and polarization has only been increasing to a fever pitch, especially with social media, and it's getting worse, not better. So give us your vision of what a non-party democracy would be like, and then we could tackle arguably the tougher issue of how you conceive of making this actually happen. Certainly.

SPEAKER_01 12:25

Okay, uh, let's start off with stopping the gatekeeping, because we need a real choice. Of people to sit as representatives based on their performance, based on their record, 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 off the ballot box. So it's not radical in that terms. We are saying, well, look, there is some state and whatever you take the party labels off the ballot. So individuals stand as uh independent representatives. Obviously, to uh be a serious uh candidate, you would uh possibly get X number of uh signatures from the voters to to qualify for that. And then you could use uh uh basically, let's say there is half a dozen uh candidates that want to stand in your constituency. And then through rank choice voting, people choosing their first, second, third preference of these candidates, you're electing these independent representatives as a first step. Once these representatives are in the legislature, they are speaking on behalf of their constituents. Not on behalf of the party, there's no party whip or party discipline, uh not uh you know committee assignments taken away, funding taken away, primary challenges introduced. So there is no threat from the party monopoly, if you like. These people are now accountable to the public, their constituents. So once these representatives are in the legislature for the executive the 400 and odd uh numbers, whatever the the number is uh in US representatives could nominate the president and the running mate uh candidates uh to a process. The ones that get the most backing through uh through voting and through panels and talk shows that they host in America as a tradition, laying out their policies, they will narrow the field down to two presidential candidates and their running mates. The winning ticket will form the executive as they do now, and the runner-up will assume the role of opposition party, but without the party affiliation, basically scrutinizing the executive and uh informing public and the independent representatives on alternative legislations or alternative interpretations of what's being proposed. So that independent representatives are now accountable to their constituents, there is a structure in place to uh have the same system continued. Now what you have is a natural evolvement of the democracy from this monopoly of party system to true representation and independent representatives forming coalitions around each and every policy and using their conscience and the opinion of their constituency so that they can make decisions that is in the best interest of the public rather than best interest of the funding uh machine of military industrial complex, big pharma, finance, you name it, or other special interest groups. This is a matter of life and death.

SPEAKER_03 16:58

In principle, this sounds intriguing and exciting. Uh in in practice, certain challenges bubble up almost almost immediately. Let's let's start with the electorate, not even talking about money and influence and backing, let's talk about the individual American voter. The onus now is placed from the parties to delineate in in broad strokes, and there's overlap and there's contradiction. But when an American votes for a Democrat on the left or a Republican ostensibly on the right, it's a little bit like reaching for a product in the supermarket. You more or less have a brand association, you've got a brand identity. And at least in traditional terms, the American left has been an advocate of a set of principles. And once again, there's variability, there's overlap, there's ad hoc inconsistencies, but generally speaking, I vote Democrat, I'm voting for a candidate who is more or less the following, in support of bigger government, in support of what we would consider humanistic values, affirmative action, give the underdog a little bit of extra help. I'm in favor of public service programs and big public service projects. And the list goes on of the left progressive Democrat. Conversely, mirror mirror, if I vote Republican, I want less government. I'm tired, especially now, I'm tired of affirmative action and minorities being treated special or different. And I want a tight border and immigration cut. So you see where I'm getting at. So from your system, just so I better understand what your solution proposes, you have individual candidates with their own sensibility about all of these issues. And then when I vote for Meton or Mookie, then I get Menton's opinions or Mookie's opinions, and frankly, the onus is on me to really figure out what this person is all about. Now, how the hell am I gonna know as a voter what I'm getting with a Meton or a Mookie? And to be honest with you, I don't have time to peruse a roster of dozens of potential candidates, each with their own position on all of these issues. And the the two-party system sucks. Um, you know, it's biased, it's corrupt, it limits my ability to influence the government, but more or less I know what I'm getting. Like when I'm in the supermarket and 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'm getting. So, how do you address this this baseline issue of stripping candidates of party affiliation, voting on them individually, and the limited bandwidth, sometimes no bandwidth, of the American voter. Going back quickly to our founding fathers, we're not even so much a democracy as a represent as a representational democracy, right? It's a representative democracy, and we have the House and Senate, and the House is from each district, yes, and it's like the House of Lords and the House of Commons. There was an inherent distrust of the common voter built into our constitution. So you're turning this around, you are empowering these unwashed masses to make these big decisions, and you expect them to know an awful lot about a 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 fathers founding fathers during the found founding fathers' time the communication was not instant information was not available we didn't have the typewriters we didn't even have radios never mind television and internet so we're talking about information age and you know from social media the information is distributed decimated instantly and people can reach uh one another organize instantly has this made us smarter or more polarized and more stupid and misinformed or that's a very that that's that's a very very good question look I mean it probably will will will will take another few hours for us to uh open up that topic uh but suffice to say tools internet is just tool just like the guns like the you know you you you as a country are big on civil liberties and your guns and what have you internet is only a tool it's how you use it yeah that's why I brought up these two gentlemen who are using the internet in a way that you described which is enhancing transparency and empowering the individual earlier and deeper in the 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 an influencer on TikTok too and I get a tsunami of idiocy with every post I make it's astonishing when you when you dip your toes into the cesspool of the internet you do gain a lot of transparency and you're reminded of you know not to sound condescending or patronizing to my fellow Americans 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 in agreement with you we've got to call a spade a spade as we say here in Yorkshire England it's it is what it is but let's kind of uh uh let's kind of uh break that down a little bit we are fed from the school days and from our parents left and right this is ingrained into us into our thinking what fires together wires together so we have been thought that parties simplify options red versus blue democrats versus republicans agree on that and there are certain promises that they make that they're going to do let's say close the borders well apparently Obama sent more people away from america illegal immigrants than Trump has ever done and he he drone assassinated people by the thousands in the Middle East correct absolutely and that's that's kind of associated with the that's associated with the right side rightly or wrongly I I wore blue kind of out of accident to this conversation I'm I'm black I'm neutral I'm neutral so I think we're both we're both more or less in this libertarian kind of area where where less government is better and we want the people to be free and empowered 100% and and that's what democracy means if you go back to Athens that's what democracy means democracy predates parties. So let me come back to the original point you were making now maybe I'll open parentheses here and close it very quickly through digital primaries and what have you even if you elect somebody it doesn't stop there because the party machine A would have filtered those candidates in front of you so it's not an open market of candidates that you've picked from B once they're elected the party machine asserts their power they're they're they're doing uh you know in UK we had conservative Republican uh government Boris Johnson's government and because 21 MPs did not vote with him with the party line they got expelled from the party almost ruining their career so what I'm saying you can have a say or public can have a say in the primaries but the story doesn't end there.

SPEAKER_03 27:01

Let's leave that be. I'm not advocating for these digital apps from my prior guest I'm just illustrating that and I'm leading you on in ways where these gentlemen have digital solutions and I want to hear from you what your digital solution is. That's where I'm getting at.

SPEAKER_01 27:21

So the the solution is this now you've mentioned without sounding condescending there are people out there that cannot understand the information and they are basically flooding your TikTok uh with silly remarks and and what have you so and voting for presidents.

SPEAKER_03 27:41

Yeah exactly well look America is a vast country and it's got uh naturally people with different opinions which we have got to respect every opinion as long as it doesn't go towards violence we've got to respect everybody and every opinion that's that's the uh basic principle sure that goes the first amendment rights if you want to get on tick tock and tell me that I have yellow teeth and a bad complexion and I'm an idiot bring bring it on I I welcome it so here is the solution that the proposed system will have now each candidate will mandatorily put their top five or ten pledges on the ballot on the paper and in a constituency you will know each candidate's position on immigration border control gun rights you you name it whatever matters to the American people as a category it will be on there they will be pro or anti-immigration let's say pro or anti-walls or pro or anti-wars or whatever that may be whatever the policy that you're concerned with it will be simplified and as half a dozen points will be a campaigned on b it will be on the ballot box so when you go into your ballot paper when you go into the ballot box you can have a fresh reminder what they stand for also and this is quite an important point also they will declare the funding that they have had from any groups over fifty dollars let's say a hundred dollars so what we what I suggest in my book is democracy tax on the big big donors these billionaires that basically buy favors the more you donate above five hundred dollars or thousand dollars like the income tax you can tax this progressively and say okay you want to you want to donate it donate a million pounds to Mookie we'll tax you that 50% on that one you want to donate that's a new angle on Citizens United that's very interesting obviously we haven't got time for me to explain all of the book uh and I don't want to be sounding marketing here but uh the we want to hear we want to hear what this idealized solution is about because it you know I have another show called the science fiction factory and people talk about speculative worlds and to some people this sounds like it's apropos for that show too because this in ways is a dream come true that you've outlined and uh and reasonable people this is appealing I'm not voting for the Democrats who aren't really democrats anymore or Republicans Republicans don't even know what they are anymore because they're more or less the cult surrounding an individual who is fickle and uh changes his mind. So sure it would be great that I get just to summarize what you're saying um I get maybe on my phone profiles of candidates and the candidates are devoid of party affiliation there's no more parties right correct this is like a speculative novel here and uh I I I doom scroll through the listing and then I see candidates who who tie themselves to key issues and then promise to abide by them should they be elected abortion legal or illegal marijuana gay marriage immigration dreamers foreign wars yes we we go on and on and then and then what okay so then do I get a chance to vote from this the miraculous application how how do I get my my word in there the the the votes are following the same pattern so when you vote for your representative as you do now you will continue all you do is that you will have a free market of the candidates that want to be there not just the Korea politicians who have been either compromised or corrupted that put before you to choose between different managers of the same system.

SPEAKER_01 32:55

So now you've got true lawyers true doctors true podcasters that are coming on and say I am a decent honest person that I'm gonna represent my constituency but the beauty about this is this the beauty about the system is this currently let's say you are not happy with your representative you are not going to be able to vote that guy out or that person out he or she because the alternative means letting the other party in which is even a worse choice.

SPEAKER_03 33:36

So you are gonna continue voting for that guy that ignored your uh your your your wishes and ignored his promises and he's done a U-turn on those he's voted but whereas under this system you know what his pledges are what her pledges are what he or she are where they're getting their money from and remember we called it democracy tax of big money some of that money can be spent on these candidates so they can run their campaigns a law can be passed that local media can give these people after a certain level equal access to uh to to to to media outlets uh but that aside the most important factor is here is accountability because you can actually put a finger on it and say well no Metin we voted for you last time and you said you was gonna vote for the gay rights you voted completed opposite you said you were gonna be anti-abortion but you voted pro-abortion so thank you but no thank you out of the window I'm gonna vote for the next guy that has been a doctor for so long and I can trust the guy he's got a record here so you are given power people have given power to punish representatives that do not represent them again going back to my prior guest Ramon Perez his app does that in terms of giving voters currently it exists an application where they can actually see legislation that's active in their district in the capital and then they could cross reference it using the application with how their representative voted. So if I if I vote in Meton and to your point um you know I want gay marriage to be happening in my district and you vote opposite or abortion or whatever then actually it shows it on the app how you actually voted on the floor of the Capitol and then gives that but what you're saying though is exponentially extrapolating that to bring transparency and data to the selection of the candidates and then the accountability of the candidates now now is this a platform is this an interface is this an app how the hell will these unwashed masses know all this okay so the just before I answer that question uh just worth clarifying this uh point uh on the digital applications that you have referred to the choice is curated by the parties already it's not a digital platform because the information will be available uh on the ballot paper but if there is a a general digital platform that people can see this will supplement it that's fine so we're not changing or we I'm not advocating that the uh the constitution changes or this changes the other changes start off with this you have some independence in states uh like a Bernie Sanders now imagine uh you have five Bernie Sanders uh likes of Bernie Sanders there imagine you have ten likes of Bernie Sanders the balance of power between Republicans and Democrats is very thin when legislation passes is by two or three votes one way or the other so once public have elected a number of MPs that makes a difference then the system party system will lose its legitimacy. You're gonna eliminate the parties and empower individuals with with a breadth of choices devoid of party affiliation that are based on policy based on issues and you're empowering voters with a much broader swath of candidates now my my issue though is a tsunami of information that comes with that and potentially confusion. So going back to my original point Democrats and Republicans are a mishmash of ad hoc policy and ambiguity and bullshit that is true however there's a general bucket of stuff that is blue and red and it's still more or less intact. Yeah okay cool when you propose destroying that okay I can't imagine that these unwashed masses are gonna troll into a voting booth and look at a piece of paper with two dozen candidates of which there are five to ten policy issues and be able to realistically simply execute their right to vote in a way that's coherent and manageable that that's I'm not pushing back against your vision I'm merely introducing a logistical hurdle which is in ways central to many of our problems in democracies there's just too much information there's too much noise yep uh understand that understand that let's let's uh kind of unpack that let's let's deal with that uh but it's suffice to say parties do not like you said it's a mismatch do not represent anybody's views entirely uh they're aggregators of votes and they get different groups and different beliefs in under their umbrella to win elections yeah and then they compromise everyone knows they compromise exactly so but that's not our problem let's just kind of uh move to the proposed move to the proposed system now yes people are not gonna be able to digest every legislation but that's not what is asked of the people now imagine a scenario where I've got into trouble with the law what do I do I'll go and pick a lawyer and if that lawyer is good and he's got a good reputation that he prevents people going and doing jail time he's gonna have a reputation I have a health issue I don't have to be an expert on the health I go to a specialist one or two of them and they will summer up they don't have to explain to me what that illness or disease does and does not do they will summarize it for me and say here is our options this is what we will do.

SPEAKER_01 41:20

Likewise representatives should be representing us so we'll look at uh maybe two maybe three maybe five it depends how many people are 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 threshold for them to get enough sport locally for them to be serious candidates what is that vetting process because you're swapping out a party infrastructure with its vetting with its money with its funding okay and its organization you're throwing that in the garbage got it and then you're swapping that with your own vetting and filtering and presumably funding process so what exactly is that okay so let's look at the funding now I think US in foreign aid sends three billion to Egypt so many billions to uh Jordan so many billions not anymore they they still are they still are they still uh sent 170 90 whatever 300 billion to Ukraine now United States is uh the superpower of the world the it it kind of uh hurts me to say that if we cannot uh fund our politicians there is something wrong there is something wrong we have been taught from the education through the media but I want to open parentheses about the media media is now owned by the same billionaire class are you saying that the government are is gonna fund these candidates well the I'm not saying is that part of your vision part of your solution I'm not saying that exactly because uh it is for Americans to decide for themselves as to how they can do it what what I'm saying what I'm arguing is that the current democracy based on parties is not a representative or accountable democracy and that problem goes back to the founding 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 the people themselves that want to stand as uh and they can raise money from the public because there are all these interest groups. So uh you know funding is another area, uh it's it's a big buc in American politics. And I I think Mr. Bloomberg spent so many millions of pounds in his is in his campaign before he dropped out. Uh so in terms of local uh representatives in in terms of their constituency, we're not talking about 50 states, we're talking about their own constituency. So the funding can come from raising funds on their own behalf. The MPs can have a team to raise it for themselves, public support them. There can be part state funded, part state funded after you qualify for a certain level, and then part of it is gonna come from the big donors taxed and put back into the system so that it's still but it's still special interests.

SPEAKER_03 45:11

You're you're still you're still subject to the whims of a select few who have money. Well, you tax. There might not be a formal party system, but you have candidate ABC, okay? And ABC is an honest man, and he's a humanist, and he could be a terrific leader for the country. And candidate B, I don't know, he's pretty sneaky, and candidate C, he might even change his mind. But candidate C has a lot of a lot of cashola. He's in the advertising, he's he's in the face of the unwashed masses 100, 1,000 times more than candidates A and B. Who are you gonna vote for? I work in marketing. Yes, you need to throw money behind something, usually, for people even to know who the hell you are. Mind share is limited. That is correct. People don't have time, and people 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 system that exists right now of certain candidates getting more money than others. You eliminate the party infrastructure, but you still have the same problem of money and special interest, and those candidates with more funding having a higher probability of getting elected than those who do not. Uh well, let's candidates who are more adroit at raising money have a higher probability of being elected than candidates who might be less adept at fundraising, but might be better candidates.

SPEAKER_01 47:11

Uh you you have a fair point there, but we need to address that point on two or three levels. Uh let's address it at the presidential level first. Now that is where billions go into the campaigns, and this is where big money speaks volumes. Because now you are going nationwide. Because you've got to differentiate between presidential contests and the local representative contest.

SPEAKER_03 47:43

I don't want to blow up your example, but they just had a runoff in Texas for the midterms, yeah, and they spent$100 million in Texas. Yeah, okay. So so right now that big money isn't just for El El Presidente, it's it's coming down to the grassroots level, especially for key districts and midterm.

SPEAKER_01 48:07

Yes, yes, fair point. So let's work on the on the district and let's work on the representatives.

SPEAKER_03 48:14

Anywhere that it's the same rules apply. I don't see any difference between macro and micro with this endemic problem of democracy being destroyed from within, mostly from marketing contingencies, the human nature that goes with voting for a candidate that you see on TV.

SPEAKER_01 48:36

Yeah. Well, look, let me give you a couple of uh pointers here. Uh it might not be directly relevant, but sometimes uh just throwing money at something doesn't get you results. If the product is bad, if the product is bad, no matter how you market it, it will not get the results.

SPEAKER_03 49:01

Look at look at momdani in New York. He had money, but he had a great social media driven campaign. He he he he won based on charisma 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 the money on an institutional level. Look, going back to the uh going back to the founding father's quote that we can not restrict uh people's rights to organize and spend money, that's anti-democratic because we are Western liberal democracies. However, what we can do and say we're gonna tax our excessive funding into politics because that's not funding a candidate, that is buying political favors. Look, you uh I wish I could say to you, look, our capitalist system is gonna run without the money. We're not talking about socialism because that's dead and buried uh may it rest in peace. We're talking about liberal free economies where money will always have influence. Our objective is to minimize that influence, and taxation of that funding into politics is one way of doing it, and then state help to even the battlefield is another way of doing it. Uh but most importantly, we've been uh thought that uh people masses are ignorant, they don't know it, they don't understand it. But no matter how much money you put behind a candidate that is anti-abortion, he's not gonna win the vote of the person who is pro-abortion. So policies matter. Policies matter, and when you look at uh your candidate, a yes, you've got to reach it, but ultimately, no matter how they paint that candidate, if he is uh in uh uh disagreement or you're in disagreement with his policies 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 of money on politics by dispersing the power. Whereas now it really has captured the money uh is basically deciding what happens with the governments. Dispersing that power back to the people, back to independent representatives, creating accountability and having a trust in people to say, well, look, everybody can choose a right lawyer, right doctor, and they 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 much overdue and welcoming. My my problem though is that it it seems to beg the question of the endemic and systemic problems of the two-party infrastructure that you want to sweep away. Because, you know, nature abhors a vacuum, and uh, you know, and marketing people abhor small budgets, and the unwashed masses abhor boredom and confusion. So you might destroy the two-party system and even bring about certain changes, such as this tax on funding, which is intriguing, but it all it does is lower the baseline because everyone's taxed equally. So if you've got more money, you have more money that you could sustain giving more because you can endure the tax. So I I I'm just trying to trying to figure out how destroying the the political system eliminates these endemic problems, which have more to do with marketing, communication, human nature than they do with party politics per se, because party politics are fueled by these core human foundational biases and inconsistencies. So, for example, you brought up that you know, policies walk, right? And and bullshit, you know, doesn't talk, right? Because uh, you know, if if if you're opposed to abortion, then there's no way you're gonna vote for any candidate who would who would believe otherwise. Well, look at the millions of minority voters, especially African-American men who swung to Donald Trump. Historically, they were all Democrats if they voted at all. And the election might very well have been swung from these minority groups who traditionally have been Democrat, and they were swung by the agility and creativity of Donald Trump to woo them to the Republican side. That that didn't have anything to do with policy per se, and it had to do with with creativity and and and balls, if you want to put it that way. He went for it. He was in the McDonald's drive-thru, yeah, in the McDonald's outfit. He drove a garbage truck when he felt that the the Democrats were full of it, right? He he created a pageant of campaigning where the policies got all mixed up and ultimately became irrelevant to the campaign itself, and he won over millions of people who ostensibly were w voting against their own interests. That is correct. This happens over and over again. I work in marketing where you try to convince people who who don't want what you're selling to be unable to live without it.

SPEAKER_01 55:34

Yeah, look, the world will not change uh instantly. We are talking about evolution rather than le revolution. So just just let's let's break uh kind of uh the the point you've made. Let's kind of delve deeper in and peel off layers here. A lot of people currently feel politically homeless. And that's why they've shifted in droves from democ voting for democrats to voting for Trump. Why? Because war in Gaza and slaughter in Gaza continued under Joe Biden. And guess what? Could you guys have picked the a worst 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 your point swung from Joe Biden, who disappointed them by being complacent about Gaza. And then they voted for Donald Trump, who in his first administration rose to power with the Muslim ban. Remember that? Exactly. So memories are short. And I I like I like what you're stating though, which is like you have nowhere to go. So the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Exactly. And and memories are short. And now, you know, Trump is bombing the hell out of the Middle East and his super pro unilateral, unconditional 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 said no more endless wars.

SPEAKER_03 57:36

Well, they're not saying it's endless, but he is bombing the shit out of the Middle East, that's for sure.

SPEAKER_01 57:41

Certainly, certainly. I mean, look, the the the system in Middle East is being propped up by the Western, if you like, uh regimes, let's call it, or the system, because that regime or system does not represent the American British people. Because the donors and the uh the the role of the big money means that these uh lawmakers, these presidents, blue or red, are acting in the best interest of the oil companies, military industrial complex, and so on and so forth, and banks will make money out of all these things. So returning the power to people will is the only way that we're gonna uh end these wars because uh guess what? It's regime changes, they've done it in Iran in 1953, when the British when the Mossadak had uh nationalized Iranian oil and not uh allowed British to kind of uh take the advantages. What happened? CIA and MI5 have toppled a guy and they've installed Shahriza Pelevi.

SPEAKER_03 59:06

Uh they um Americans don't understand that our legacy with Iran is uh duplicitous and uh and quite quite nasty. They they hate us, the Iranians hate us for good reason, and this is for forgotten in the narrative. I'm not I'm not justifying it, but I'm just saying that you bring up relevant history to consider current events.

SPEAKER_01 59:36

I would like to qualify that point. I don't believe Iranians hate Americans 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 a democratic system. That's not that doesn't mean that I'm anti any race or origin. I love America, I love American people, uh I love the country I live in, Britain, and I think we've got liberal uh freedom and and so on and so forth. And our ancestors had fought for this uh freedom and liberty that we have a duty to sustain and improve. So uh when it comes to Middle East, these uh uh families uh that run countries are in the interest of themselves and in the interest of oil companies and uh and and uh defense companies. So it's not in the best interest of the Middle Eastern people, neither is in the best interest of the European or American people. Uh so I'm I'm with you. We we started off with Trump and saying, well, he actually misled people and the system as it is. Democrats let the voters down, so they moved on to Trump and voted for the Republican candidate. He's got in power only, you know, only to be a lot worse than what Joe Biden is. Uh so yes, you can blame them and say they've got short memories, or you can say, What can they do? What would I do if I were in their shoes? What would you do if in the if you're in their shoes? The options were you vote for Kamala Harris, which was more of the same, continuing with Joe Biden, or you would have this right-wing person. Uh, traditionally you didn't vote for them, but he's saying he's gonna end the war. So you believe him and you vote for him. Foolish, maybe.

SPEAKER_03 1:01:47

Well, I I think the motivator for these minority folks who did flip was primarily economic. They saw Donald Trump on TV, he's the apprentice guy. Yes. Uh the pandemic uh had tons of stimulus, but it precipitated a horrible inflation, which ate up everyone's checkbook.

SPEAKER_00 1:02:10

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 1:02:11

And the economy overall wasn't doing as well as everyone had hoped. They weren't better off than they were. And then speaking of memories, they remember before the pandemic how things were, and then before the pandemic was the Trump administration. And uh, well, let's give it another whirl. So I think it's primarily economic. To your point, there's only two choices. So, well, this sucks. I'll just go for the other guy. And it reinforces your point that our two-party system sucks. It does. Let me bring up another example, which is parliamentary democracy, which is actually more prevalent than the American binary system, right? Uh most countries in Europe, Israel, uh, the list is long for parliamentary democracies. And here voters get more of a choice. You have the Green Party, you have the far-right radical party, like in Germany, now they're like number two, right? And then uh, and then you have the fringes who precipitate the need for coalition building in the government. You'll have a dominant party or two, but they have insufficient leverage to really run the government, and then they need to collaborate and they need to negotiate with these fringe parties to create a coalition. Again, Israel is a classic example of that, but that in Israel has ironically backfired because the extreme right wing now is disproportionately powerful in keeping Netanyahu in power. So the annexation of the West Bank, the treatment of the Palestinians, the Gaza War, the decimation of the territory. Uh, clearly, they just want to annex 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 as prime minister is dependent on upholding this kind of policy. So there you have a parliamentary democracy with more options available to voters, but um, but it could very well lead to extremist positions by one of this need to negotiate. It can be complicated. Yes, so I just bring this up where you do give voters more choice, but it doesn't necessarily lead to a more uh you know liberal in the classic Enlightenment sense uh government. Uh and it could lead actually to even more confusion.

SPEAKER_01 1:04:51

So I would I would I would like to I would like to explain that point uh in more detail because I've I I don't think I've explained myself clearly on that point. Now there are some political scientists that advocate for more parties in US.

SPEAKER_00 1:05:13

Yes.

SPEAKER_01 1:05:13

Uh that will be a disaster because party party system uh and factions uh are a disaster. The party system itself is a disaster. I'll tell you for why. You have two uh two scenarios, always always two scenarios, whether it's Germany, France, uh Israel, UK. In the UK, we have uh predominant two parties, then we have the third party, liberals, we have the Greens and and so on and so forth, but uh predominantly so far is changing, landscape is changing, but we had conservatives that represented the upper class businesses, yeah, the and Tories and and the Labour. Now when David Cameron didn't get a majority. He formed a coalition. He formed a coalition with Lib Dems, liberals. Nick Clegg. Now that was a disaster because they couldn't get a policy through, because liberals wanted something totally different. Conservatives wanted something totally different. And that did not work. And coalition after a while disappeared. Lib Dems have took a big hit because they've gone back on their promises of not introducing student loans, and they've done it, so their ratings went down the palm. Similar problems you've explained in Israel. That a small group, a small portion of the population can have disproportionate influence on the policy outcome. And that's not a healthy democracy. That is not healthy democracy. In France, you have a problem, they had three or four, even five prime ministers changed. So that is a total disaster. On the opposite side, when you have a strong government in UK, when you have a strong election majority, you control the parliament, you basically pass any law that you want. Now, party system is bad. We agree on that. But let's just kind of say how bad it is. Hitler came to power through the Nazi Party.

SPEAKER_03 1:07:35

He was elected, by the way. Adolf Hitler was democratically elected. That is correct.

SPEAKER_01 1:07:48

That is correct. And look at what he'd end up doing because he had such a big majority and such a power that he was not contained or controlled. He started demolishing the institutions and he became the dictator. And we have a similar process in many different countries. But the one of the biggest atrocities, if not the biggest, was committed by that Adolf Hitler against the Jewish people. And the party system is indefensible. It doesn't have to be that way. It does not have to be that way. Like the voting rights for women. For 500 years, uh it took nearly five centuries, 450 plus years, for UK to give full suffrage to women. It was 1928 or something that it finally was given to women in the United States, I believe, nearly two centuries after the men had the suffrage. So what might look radical now, i.e., doing away with parties, when the time comes, it will just look natural. But here is a kicker. When we mention coalition of different parties, it is very different to the individual representatives. Because individual representatives are independent and accountable to their constituents when they come to vote in the legislature for a policy, be it abortion, be it gun control, be it uh war, whatever it may be. Each and every representative vote on his conscience, on his promises, and on his instructions from his uh voters, because if he doesn't listen to them, he's gonna be kicked out on the next election. So here what we have is uh basically uh policies that uh command the majority uh of the public's opinion will pass through as legislation, and the ones that don't will fail through or they will be uh amended to reflect uh the bigger population. So we the proposed system does away with extremism, everybody will work around coalition building, right? And I want to revisit uh the point you've made about uh confusing the people. We are not confusing the people when the president is out there campaigning. I know there's the role of big money, we'll leave that aside for a second. But you are looking at his key policies that concern you. You're not looking at everything. Same thing goes with the uh local representative, you're looking at the key where that person stands on the key policies. If he's in tune with your beliefs, then you vote for that person, and then you expect him to behave in the parliament or in the Congress. If he doesn't, then you have the right to punish him in the next cycle of elections. So the system may look radical, but I would call it natural evolution of the democracy.

SPEAKER_03 1:11:38

I mean, you're you're it's a map territory thing, right? So the map is corrupt, it's increasingly ad hoc, it's been institutionalized based on special interests and the powerful and the wealthy. And the territory in its essence is a one-to-one correspondence between the individual desire and wish and hope of the voter, yeah, and that voice translating seamlessly to representation in government with that individual's best interests at heart. So, what you're trying to do is create a seamless connection between the voter and their desire, their representative person in the government, and then the engines of legislation which don't get fuzzy and misled and corrupted, and in a sense perverted by big business, big money, big interests. So that that to me sounds noble. It's just if I've been pushing back, it's just the the mechanism and the logistics of doing that in a way where we don't perpetuate the same problems that got us into this mess in the first place.

SPEAKER_01 1:13:06

Indeed, indeed. And it's a very valid point and very valid concern. Dispersing the power can only be a good thing.

SPEAKER_03 1:13:17

I would hope so, but it begs the question of two things. The one is the continued tyranny of the majority. So uh, you know, most most districts in the United States are purplish because you know we're increasingly polarized. Some states are red as hell, like South Dakota is 99% Trump, probably higher than that, and then other states are are are equally blue, you know, and then most of America is is some variation of the purple. You can't make everybody happy all the time. So even if I if I have that one-to-one correspondence between my desire and and my candidate, you know, my candidate might not win in my district. So then that begs the question of my desires and my rights translating into the law of my land in a way that that is as seamless as you as you envision. I guess that's that's one of the backstops of democracy by nature. You can't you can't have everyone happy. Uh, but that's one problem. And the other one is the judiciary, which we haven't talked about at all. Yep. Where where the judges, right? The Congress makes the laws, the judges interpret them and enforce them. And judges are appointed, and they're often appointed through party affiliation. You have Republican judges, you have Democrat judges. Trump has done a great job of populating the American judiciary for generations, starting at the top with the Supreme Court. Yeah. That's another factor which bolsters your argument as to the inherent failure of a two-party system or a party-driven system, because it infuses bias within the courts, too.

SPEAKER_01 1:15:24

Indeed, indeed. And that's a big, big scary thing because founding fathers have purposely uh split the powers so that uh people's will is not uh taken for granted and and and not used against people, it's not captured as we see today. So they had these prophecies. So uh in in terms of judges, what I want to say is this as Liliana Mason says, uh parties have fused culture with politics, and that's uh what's created this polarization. In fact, there is uh a research that Americans reds and blues actually agree on hundred plus points. Yeah, I believe it. Yeah, they so so so we're not as uh uh social media and other media makes it out to be. These are the fringes that media gets views on sensations. Media is mainstream media is owned by the same elite uh that control the narratives. Uh we know, we know how many journalists had been kicked out. Uh Tucker Carlson is one of them. If you don't behave, you get kicked out. So we know media is controlled.

SPEAKER_03 1:17:00

You you got Don Lemon on one side, you got Tucker Carlson on the other. I want to see Don Lemon and Tucker Carlson do one of those wrestling matches. Wouldn't that be would that be fun?

SPEAKER_01 1:17:19

Yeah, to the to the to the point, what we are saying, uh this the simple message that I want to get across, we see it as a radical or problematic thing. We're trying to pick holes in it because all our lives and our parents' lives, we've been fed a certain narrative. So that narrative will change once representation is back with the people where it belongs, and then polarization will not evaporate overnight, but gradually, gradually we will be discussing policies, not trying to get one over each other like parties do. And then judiciary will hopefully in time be appointed on the basis of merit rather than their political orientation.

SPEAKER_03 1:18:19

Yeah, I again in principle I love your concept and everything, everything which you've set up for your book, you know, breaking the chains of democracy, I think is is lovely, is wonderful. And your core precepts are are valid, they're they're hard to argue with. The problems that I've been sharing with you, though, are more tactical and they're more logistics, and the devil, as they say, is in the details. So you could have the best idea, and its implementation could precipitate or perpetuate some of the issues that you had before. And I would be intrigued to see your idea pulled through in terms of concrete recommendations for its implementation. And in that spirit, could we spend maybe just a few minutes? Let's imagine that you are like Willy Wonka or the Wizard of Oz, right? You're meeting peacing, grand emperor of reality, and you could, you know, wave your wand or salute, and your system is is is is implemented or it's begun. How how would this actually manifest? And I'm I'm not even talking about dislodging an entrenched system with trillions of dollars and all these special interests. It's it's like a revolution just to make this happen. But even logistically, what would this look like? Let's pretend that you wave your wand for the let's go with the presidential election of 2028. What would this look like?

SPEAKER_01 1:20:49

Well, let's start with the uh basic assumption. Let's say we've elected independent representatives.

SPEAKER_03 1:21:00

So there would be numerous Bernie Sanders style independents, exactly, and each one would come with a profile. Correct. Five to ten key issues that they're public about, transparent about, with a tacit promise that if they would be elected, that's the kind of legislation that they would be gunning for.

SPEAKER_01 1:21:23

And we can hold them accountable to that.

SPEAKER_03 1:21:26

Okay.

SPEAKER_01 1:21:28

And those people we will know who's funded their campaign. So if there is a special interest group that I'm against, let's say I'm against wars and he's got money directly or indirectly from the arms manufacturers, I will know that. That will influence my voting behavior. So not only that we know their policies, top priority policies, top 10 policies, we also know who's funding their campaign above$100.

SPEAKER_03 1:22:00

Where where do we know it? Is it you know, and I hate to be this tactical, but it does boil down to you know, these unwashed masses getting information. Like how do you make this this this tumultuous weltering of information, however relevant and impactful, uh manifest for the public in a way that's actionable?

SPEAKER_01 1:22:26

Yeah, well, one of the uh you know, one one simple solution could be that uh, you know, we have we have various apps, we have various technological apps or websites. Let's say you have a works and pensions uh app or whatever it is to pay your taxes, to file your year-end taxes for the government. And and that's not an app you and I created, that's a government app that's available to every citizen uh in their area to go in and look at that app and say who's funding my candidates in my area and what is their top policies. They can read about them, top ten policies. So it's a central bit of information, one way of doing it, is available to the public who is uh wanting to go and have a look at it. Admittedly, some people will be ignorant and they will not even look at it. Yeah, well, well, that is a that that is debatable because uh I think without a proper survey and and getting the numbers and percentages right, I think it's very difficult to put an estimated number on it. But there is scientific observations that say 10% of the population, roughly 10% of the population of any population, no matter what, are compassionate. The other 10% of the population are evil, no matter what.

SPEAKER_02 1:24:06

Yes, the bell, it's the bell curve, right?

SPEAKER_01 1:24:08

Correct, yes.

SPEAKER_02 1:24:09

And and the 80% in the middle, they follow the system don't give a shit.

SPEAKER_01 1:24:15

Well, they that's one way of putting it, yes.

SPEAKER_00 1:24:18

They follow the system.

SPEAKER_03 1:24:21

So so far you got me, but intent is one thing and being informed is another, right? Correct, and then taking action is yet another.

SPEAKER_01 1:24:31

Yeah, correct. Well, look, people are not political scientists, but if you decimate the information into top ten policies and who's funded them, they will know who they 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. So now let's move on to elected representatives moving into the House of Representatives. And these are Bernie Sanders of this world from every constituency. Let's say there's 430, 450 representatives to get the presidential candidate. Anybody can in line with the US constitution with your constitution, anybody can uh uh put themselves forward for the presidential candidate. But what we are doing, we're doing round of voting, they need to get minimum backing from the representatives who represent the wider population. So once they have uh enough uh support from representatives on behalf of the population or the people, they will then go around of debates, present their policies, present their running mates, and through round of voting in the House of Representatives, let's say, they will then narrow it down to two finalists with their running mates. The winning ticket now becomes the president, no parties involved, no reds or no blues. You're looking at their top policies, just like the local representatives. We you know, one candidate may say, Look, we're gonna close our borders, the other one might say, look, we're gonna have a free movement of people. One will say we're for promo uh abortion, the other one says we are anti-abortion. You'll have their top ten pledges as well. Like we do with the parties. We know what the reds are standing 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 same scenario. But no parties. We've elected those people, the winning ticket has become the executive branch, formed their cabinet, and uh we call it ministers, but you call it secretaries. Uh, and the opposition is mandated by public to do the scrutiny, to educate other independent MPs on legislation. So the whole system puts the power back with people where it really belongs. That's the meaning of democracy.

SPEAKER_03 1:27:27

In principle, I I love it. And uh, you know, if you could wave your your wand, it would it would be a a fascinating experiment, especially in in the United States.

SPEAKER_01 1:27:41

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 written prescription that solves every problem, details can be Worked out based on cultural and historic systems respecting the constitution.

SPEAKER_03 1:28:08

How did you get here? Can you tell us just a little bit about your not your personal life per se, but your trajectory as a businessman and how you arrived at publishing this book?

SPEAKER_01 1:28:23

Cool. Sure. The starting point has been my disappointment with the prime ministers and the parties I've voted for. I voted for Tony Blair, I was disappointed with the Iraq war. I voted for David Cameron, I was disappointed with him. So I've voted for Reds and the Blues based on the comments.

SPEAKER_03 1:28:47

You got Brexit.

SPEAKER_01 1:28:49

Yes, exactly. So our lives have got worse and worse 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 are supposed to be anti-war. What is Tony Blair doing with George Bush, who's a Republican? And they've got this sex-up dossier that there is weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Well, Scott Ritter, weapons inspector, had been and inspected, and they've said that they've accounted for 90 odd percent, 95%, 98% of these weapons being destroyed. So it was just a precursor to go into Iraq. So that was the turning point that I've said we're not in a democracy. We're not in a democracy. This is not millions flooded London streets and across the globe. But yet public will, people's will, was ignored. People were dragged by the police, uh, thrown into the cells. They said, well, hang on a minute, this is more like a dictatorship than a democracy. So that was the point that I've got to kind of uh read about the democracy. And the second turning point was reading the federalist papers.

SPEAKER_02 1:30:19

Alright.

SPEAKER_03 1:30:21

So federalist papers my people. Yes. Yeah. Even though I'm a Hungarian uh emigre or I'm a first generation American, my parents are Hungarian. 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. Anchor baby. I just got dropped there.

SPEAKER_01 1:30:46

Uh love the culture, love the country, love the big portions, but that aside, once I've read The Founding Fathers, and they grappled with factions, and I said, haha. That's when the moment dropped and said, Parties are the problem for democracy. Because the world they left behind, Europe and Britain had corrupt parties, had all these issues. So they've tried to kind of create a system that will not fall victim to these factions. But unfortunately, their West fears were realized. So as we approach the 250th anniversary of American democracy, it is probably time for the Americans to think about how we can make democracy more responsive and put the power back with people.

SPEAKER_03 1:31:40

Well, amen. Says this agnostic American to that. I I think that that it's welcoming. Uh and I think your thesis is uh is wonderful. Thank you. And if I've been pushing back, I've been pushing back only in terms of logistics and the possibility of making it happen in the real world and conscientiously trying to avoid falling into the same traps that got us into this mess in the first place. Yeah, no, agree. So very good. I have one fairly cynical observation, and I'm just curious what you think. You you come at this entire situation, you know, your love of the Federalist Pers, and you have a prima facie kind of worldview here where democracy equals justice. It's almost platonic, and you quoted the Greeks earlier, too, that if you give power to the people, then that you're automatically going to end up with a just system. Uh here's counterpoint. Uh, when the internet first took off, there were bold predictions that it would do exactly what you're advocating your democratization schemata would do. That if you give everyone a voice, that if you empower every internet user with the capability of not only being a consumer of information, but a publisher, that you're gonna lead to information correcting itself, you're gonna have this engine of truth, this engine of democratized humanity. And by making everything global, instantaneous, transparent, you're gonna bring freedom to the world. And as we've seen, that vision has not played itself out. It's almost Newtonian. For every action, there's a reaction, for every kernel of truth, there is a halo, almost a tsunami of misinformation. That when you empower individuals with a voice, they're gonna use that voice in their own interests. And their own interests, you know, their 10%, 80%, 10% bell curve, you're gonna have a very, very vocal 10% wreaking havoc and mayhem because they've been empowered to do so. Uh, speaking as an American familiar with my own country, I love America too. But I feel that the core behind our two-party system goes beyond the biases that you've mentioned and described and have something fundamental to do with attitudes that are here. You have a group of Americans who believe that America should be white, Christian, male, and heterosexual. That is America. And then you have another group of people who believe in America as the globe's melting pot of humanism, equality, fairness, and they look at the government as an arbiter of many of these virtues. Yeah. And this has been fundamental to our history throughout our history, and this Democrat-Republican divide and the polarization that has evolved to me as an American growing up in America, the good, the bad, and the ugly, our current polarized climate seems to be representative of this kind of duality. And I'm curious what you think about it because you, in a sense, are bringing the internet to the world of politics. And I'm wondering if there's have you ever thought about this backfiring? That that if you give everyone a voice, you know, might might it end up radicalizing us as much as it frees us up.

SPEAKER_01 1:35:49

Uh well, start off with the internet as you've as you said, as an example, and freedom of information. Now what we're talking about is not really parallel to that, because not only the internet, now we have AI, the fake, deep fakes, and so on and so forth. And yeah, it's even more intense. Fake news. Uh not to quote Donald Trump here, but uh uh you know unverified uh news that people say, and so on and so forth. So that became a chaos. The system we look at is uh very, very different to that because we are not sending millions into the house of representatives, we are preserving the same constitution, we are preserving the same representation, we are giving people power to vote, and that's about it.

SPEAKER_03 1:36:54

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 found fascinating is that it gives much more transparency as to the will of the people than uh than a two-party system. Here we have the Democrats and Republicans, and the dividing line is 49%, 51%. Yeah right? Either way, it's only a one or two percent sway, especially in the presidential election. It's never, it's almost never more than that, right? So there's no there's no transparency. We don't get to see the the life blood, if you will, of America. But if you look at a parliamentary democracy, for example, Germany, and you see the rise of the radical right, yeah, the extremist right in Germany, okay? So you don't need much of an imagination to to figure out what's going on there. And because it's it's a fringe party that becomes mainstream over time, that is an indicator of where that society generally is moving. That is correct. And when and when you create a system that you're advocating in your book and your model of transparency and alignment between the individual and policy and candidates and governance, then you're opening up a society to this kind of deep segmentation. In a sense, you're personalizing Congress in ways that would be unprecedented now. And my question, lastly, is are we gonna get a lot of the ugliness that is that is thrown under the rug in the same way that you describe this two-party system being bad, but in this sense might be might be better for us societally.

SPEAKER_01 1:39:07

Well, let me try to answer that question for you. Now, uh human nature will not change overnight. We know that. We know that it's not gonna change because we uh it's part of nature and nurture. Now you've started off by saying uh a part of the American population uh wants America to be white, Christian, heterosexual. And the other part are male, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Now take the religion aspect of that. If those people were born in Israel, they'll be Jewish. If they were born uh in Saudi Arabia, they'll be Muslim. So uh the community that you're born into, your schooling, your parenting, your environment shapes your beliefs and your personalities. Now uh what you will find is that big cosmopolitan cities tend to be more liberal because they see different cultures and different people and they see that as a a richness. But uh what democracy means is that uh it needs to uh the uh it it needs uh to reflect the society. No matter how extreme those points of view may look to me or you.

SPEAKER_03 1:40:43

But that's my point though, which is right now our two-party system hides a lot of the ugliness of America. And if and if you create a system where where everyone's will is represented, we have we have Nazis, we have fascists, we have bigots, we have all sorts of what you and I would consider unsavory segments, but they're substantial enough in the population to be given representation in your model.

SPEAKER_01 1:41:18

That is correct. My belief is that you cannot, unless it resorts to violence, you cannot please people's beliefs and thinking as long as it remains peaceful. Nor should you. Yeah, correct.

SPEAKER_03 1:41:41

Let it rip. I'm not saying we should control it, I'm just saying that you have this Pollyanna vision of destroying parties and and a democracy being 100% representative, and I'm just saying that that could be a Pandora's box of chaos, but with it, but with it, because the the word you've chose the party system hides it.

SPEAKER_01 1:42:09

It does not eliminate it, it merely hides it. Good point. Yes. So what we are saying is that if you look at one constituency and they've elected this far radical uh whatever the description is, because it could be communist, it could be fascist, whatever it may be, either end of the spectrum. Those are not gonna be in the majority because that's not majority of the public. That is fringe, and yes, they will have uh maybe one or two representatives, but that will not determine the majority in the legislature.

SPEAKER_03 1:43:03

But look at look at Twitter X. You've got fringe groups who stir the pot, and and they're disproportionately strong in their voice and in their influence, and they just they they basically you know shit in the punch bowl, right? The whole culture on X sucks because it's you know a wild, wild west. Now, I'm not saying that that's necessarily bad, and maybe the libertarian me is like just let it loose. You you should not control free speech. But all I'm citing is that historically, when you remove guardrails and empower the individual, this Pollyanna vision of truth, beauty, and justice being an emergent quality of this maelstrom has time and time again been proven otherwise.

SPEAKER_01 1:44:07

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 for people to vote on every issue. These people, no matter how radical, extreme they may be, they are a percentage of a community in different uh states. So the people who become representative are the people who command these candidates, are the people who command the broadest support from the voters. So our only way they can have uh the uh representative status is uh for the whole or majority of the constituency to vote for these people. But I don't believe 80% of Americans are described in either extreme groups. So what you will end up with 80% of the representatives will have common sense and it'll be no different, no different in the way that current representatives are. I mean, let me kind of uh make a reference to uh Lindsay Graham.

SPEAKER_03 1:45:35

Lindsay I mean people in Washington they uh okay, yeah, I'll let you go. I have some Lindsay Lindsay gossip, but you go ahead.

SPEAKER_01 1:45:49

So the curated list of candidates filtered by the party system is a massive problem, and not being accountable to people is the problem. We're not saying open the floodgates and let people decide every policy, we're saying let people decide who they want to represent, who want them to be their representative, and we want an open market of decent candidates coming forward and trustable candidates who are less corruptible to be out there, and the legislature should consist of what the population reflects the population, so everybody airs their opinion, and everybody can vote or vote vote in or out their representative. So why why are you picking on Lindsey Graham? Well, some of his views are quite radical.

SPEAKER_03 1:46:47

Uh yeah, but Lindsey Graham of all people is the most opportunistic politician of our era. When when January 6th happened, and and and the riots were there, and the police officers were wounded, suicides, people were hurt, the woman was shot and killed. Uh Lindsay Graham was out there condemning the president, saying it's gone too far, and Trump was done.

SPEAKER_00 1:47:14

Right.

SPEAKER_03 1:47:14

And then the second Lindsay sniffed MAGA part two, he was all in. Now, the thing about Lindsay is he he he he just wants to be important. He has said that out loud in interviews, and it's true. He wants to play golf with the president of the United States. That president could be Bill Clinton, or it could be Donald Trump. It doesn't matter. Lindsay is gonna be out there playing golf with the president. Now, in order for that to happen, and this is part of my point that I was bringing up earlier, is that raw opportunism is fueled by what? Popular support. Okay, so Lindsay is popular, Lindsay gets re-elected, and Lindsay can smell and and figure out which way the wind is blowing, and that keeps Lindsay in power. And you're saying that some of his ideas are radical. Well, he's representing his constituents.

SPEAKER_01 1:48:27

Well, the reference I was making maybe my bad, I should use UK, which is my country, uh, as a reference because I don't know anywhere near as much as you do about American politics.

SPEAKER_03 1:48:41

But well, I'm just saying that you know, equating radical positions with um with attitudes that go against popular opinion is is erroneous. Well, there are many popular opinions which are which are from your vantage point radical.

SPEAKER_01 1:49:00

Yes. The point to not miss here though is this Lindsey Graham is there for the points you've made. 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. He's exactly he's there. Because he's a winner, Lindsay is a winner. Absolutely.

SPEAKER_03 1:49:28

I mean, I don't want debate to kind of a shift in his uh he's got that southern stuff going on, and you know, he's charming, and even when he changes his mind as the wind blows, you're just okay.

SPEAKER_01 1:49:42

Absolutely, absolutely. But what um the point I was trying to make under the current system, even if his constituents wanted to punish him, they couldn't. They'll need to punish the party, and that means letting the opposition through.

SPEAKER_03 1:49:58

And that is Uh primary his ass.

SPEAKER_01 1:50:02

But primary his ass means a lot of money, and somebody with deep pockets needs to do that.

SPEAKER_03 1:50:11

In that sense, it's incontrovertible. I I I agree with you.

SPEAKER_01 1:50:15

But if I was to shift the debate to UK, we had Boris Johnson, what a buffoon to become the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER_03 1:50:22

So we must that was the era of Trump 1.0. And that that was uh but the UK and America were on the same wavelength throughout this whole time, right? And Brexit, Brexit was similar. That was your MAGA, MAGA movement. Yes. It was it was UK first.

SPEAKER_01 1:50:40

Yes, UK first, exactly. Brexit was UK first.

SPEAKER_03 1:50:44

And Cameron made the existential mistake of doing a referendum on it, confident that it would lose, in in the same way that the Americans dismissed the viability of Donald Trump.

SPEAKER_02 1:50:57

Same thing.

SPEAKER_01 1:50:58

Yes. Correct. Agree. The Brexit uh was again, without boring your listeners, was fueled by Nigel Farage taking votes from the conservatives. So they wanted to shut him out by going to public and shutting down. Put it back to the back.

SPEAKER_03 1:51:16

And Nigel, by the way, going back to this extremist, extremist model, was an extremist with a very loud voice.

SPEAKER_01 1:51:24

Yes. But now he's formed the Reform UK party and he's getting very I love these names.

SPEAKER_03 1:51:31

The names are built-in euphemisms.

SPEAKER_01 1:51:33

Yes, yes, yes. But what I want to uh get across are party politics, charismatic leaders are a trap. Power belongs to people, that's where it should rest. And like we've said, we we're not gonna create chaos. The model will not create chaos because we are currently casting our votes to choose a representative. All we are doing is having a more choice of representatives, and we're having the ability to punish them when they don't do what we ask of them.

SPEAKER_03 1:52:13

Great, hallelujah! I think that's a great way to cap it. Thank you. Which is uh which is a lovely and fun and engaging conversation with uh Meeton Pekin. Thank you. And in his book, Breaking the Chains of Democracy, which is democracies held back, folks, by our antiquated, atavistic, corrupt party politics system. And if you empower individual candidates who transparently reveal their key policies, and then we create a system devoid of party politics that can then hold them accountable with transparency related to their funding, too. We can truly bring democracy to the United States and the world. You should you should uh copyright your system and then franchise it. Make it international. Eloquently put. Thank you. We're gonna put description of the book and a link to get it. 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 this podcast, at least the audio version of this podcast out today. Awesome. So the so the link will be there for the launch party for your book. Video I gotta I gotta edit a little bit, but I'll get the audio out for you, Meeken, and then you can have the launch party. And I wish you well, and uh I I love the sentiment behind it, and I hope more and more people start to embrace this idea and figure out some of the mooky criticisms or at least observations about implementation and how you know the the devil is in the details, right?

SPEAKER_01 1:54:06

Most definitely, and like we said, we're not it's not a revolution, it's not a radical change, it is natural evolution of democracy. Power belongs to people.

SPEAKER_03 1:54:20

Represent, and this is coming from two libertarian-esque guys, we're not like radical hippie lefties here, right? We want less government, but we want fair government, we want efficient government, and we want government devoid of big interests and corruption.

SPEAKER_01 1:54:39

Very, very true. Yes, indeed.

SPEAKER_03 1:54:41

So 100% like, comment, share. Thank you for listening to the Bald Ambition podcast. I'm your bald host, Mookie Spitz, and the one with all the ambition has been Meekin with this awesome idea for zero party politics in our politics. Thanks for listening. And we can bring you back in six months, a year, see how it goes, and then you could feature your your sequel.

SPEAKER_01 1:55:10

Thank you. We'll look forward to that. Look forward to it.

SPEAKER_03 1:55:13

Thank you so much.