Many people feel that the political system isn't working for the people; that the major parties agree with each other too much and against our interests.
But is 'direct democracy' the answer?
It was practised in ancient Athens, where all the voters (free men) could be accommodated in the assembly and hear the arguments. They were a small, homogeneous electorate and faced the consequences of their decisions, collectively and personally; especially as to warfare, which is why they had physicians to keep them healthy and trainers to keep them fit and skilled in fighting. As slave-owners they were experienced in organisation and command, and had ample leisure to discuss political and philosophical ideas. What was their average IQ, one wonders?
All this does not map well onto our present circumstances.
There was a weakness even in Athenian democracy. Then, as later in Rome, one of the most valued skills was oratory. While Socrates was executed for using logic to reveal socially subversive truth, Gorgias the public persuader lived to 108, becoming so wealthy that he had a solid gold statue made in his honour. However the greatest orator Demosthenes convinced Athens to resist Philip and Alexander, thereby nearly getting his city razed, like Thebes; he ended as a fugitive, killing himself to escape Macedonian revenge.
Today, the game is still a persuasion process. British voters are balloted on the basis of opinions offered them by the mass media, who also curate the facts. Journalists who investigate too conscientiously risk incarceration in a maximum security jail.
It is also a mistake to think that because our representatives are jointly against us on certain issues, their opposition among the people is united. Allowing the populace to determine multifarious policies would be a recipe for Bedlam, especially in matters where the feeling in some factions runs very strongly, as for example re 'Palestine.'
However, there are times when the people should have a determining voice. Brexit was one, and just see the response of our governors and administrators! Had Lord Cameron foreseen the outcome he would surely not have offered the choice; as it is, the Establishment has worked assiduously to vitiate the instruction we so impertinently gave them.
Another occasion is when initiating national military conflict. My MP refused to agree with me that the 12 January UK/Ukraine 'Security Agreement' was tantamount to a declaration of war on Russia. Maybe subsequent developments could alter her opinion, for Cameron again, now Foreign Secretary, told Ukraine (3 May) that they should feel free to launch the missiles our country has given them into Russian territory, which they have not been slow to do, so making ourselves a target for retaliation. Traditionally war is a royal prerogative, but in an age when defeat may entail not merely a change of ruler but the incineration of the subjects I would argue that we have a right to be consulted.
Curiously, citizens seems less interested in democracy when it is closer to them: the turnout in local elections is lower than that nationally. Sadiq Khan has been re-elected to the mayoralty of London despite presiding over soaring violent crime while proving himself an enthusiast for Net Zero and turning Londoners into each other's censors. His validation is based on a minority of votes cast, themselves constituting a minority (40 %) of the electorate. Perhaps voting should be compulsory, as in Australia.
Yet does everyone have the capacity to participate meaningfully? According to Professor Peterson, ten per cent of the population have an IQ lower than 83, a level that US military research concluded made them useless for training. That's not to say that intelligence precludes idiocy, if some of our students and the banner-waving element of their middle-class elders are anything to go by.
There is also the question whether people can be counted on to vote for what benefits the country as a whole, rather than themselves. Much thought goes into constructing policies designed to gain the support of those who are more likely to vote and be influenced by considerations of personal gain or the reduction of factors that frighten or irritate them.
Likewise the political parties seem motivated more by their desire to survive than to serve, which is why Labour became 'intensely relaxed' about the rich and the Conservatives failed to conserve national assets such as the postal service.
Nevertheless some kind of electoral reform is indicated. Diversity may be a strength but only if it is underpinned by something that holds us together.
That something could be what was rejected in 2011: the alternative vote. The referendum was influenced by the two main parties who feared a diminution of their own support in favour of what (mistakenly?) the electorate perceived as a middle-ground choice, the Liberal Democrats.
It is worth revisiting that system because of a growing sense that the current arrangements lack popular legitimation. When I looked into General Election data I found that in 2005 out of 650 Parliamentary seats only 220 were won by candidates who enjoyed an absolute majority of votes cast; and in 2010, only 217 seats. How many of even those few earned the support of more than half of the total of registered voters?
It is all very well saying how things should be and building political castles in the sky; what will drive change is the politicians feeling the carpet move under them. When mayors and devolved-assembly leaders and unelected globalist Prime Ministers become micromanaging petty tyrants riding exotic hobby-horses and their voters break up into mutually severely antipathetic factions they will need to point to a process that validates them better than what we have now.
They will also need to do more to encourage voter participation, if they wish to stave off anarchy, which is what will happen as apathy and a sense of helplessness turn into movements for direct action. The self-gluers and art-gallery soup-throwers need to be shown that they most emphatically do not have public support.
Abstention is a dereliction of duty; so is 'None Of The Above' which if it disqualified all the candidates on the ballot paper would merely result in the well-supported political protégés being parachuted into other constituencies.
We need more choice. Yet without AV even this could be gamed. Our (is it too much to say treacherous?) Tory Party is undermined by the Reform Party, and (ditto?) Labour by George Galloway's Workers Party Of Britain; First Past The Post could end with even smaller percentages for the victorious candidates. Splitting and tactical voting could be key strategies, as in the 1990s when fakers put themselves up for 'Literal Democrat', 'Conversative' and 'Labor'; or when Nigel Farage agreed not to contest Conservative seats in 2019.
With AV the losers in earlier rounds see their votes pass on (if indicated on the form) to winners until at last one candidate has a genuine (50% + 1) overall majority.
Ah, say the critics, but you'll end up with a handful of minority parties and coalitions. To which we respond, on the issues that affect us most we seem to have a uniparty already; and the parties who wished to be major would work harder to occupy the centre ground, rather than use a FPTP landslide as an excuse for constitutional revolution, as ACL Blair did in 1997 with his 43.2 per cent support (* 71.3 % turnout = 30.8 % of total registered voters.)
It could be a cure for licensed dictatorship and wild top-down enthusiasms.
