Time for ‘parallel’ democracy

The political system is failing.  Political parties are all controlled.  Even local politics is hopeless.  Isn’t it time to set up a parallel political system, and elect a local parallel head councillor, maybe a parallel MP.  Political parties to be banned.  Only individual and independent candidates permitted.

Elections to be held with local people in control of the parallel political process, more details as to how that could be done below.

Then set up parallel communication to the voters, criticising and attacking the errors of the regular councillors and MPs.  A local rag.  Website.  E-shots.  Face to face meetings.

Activism sponsored and supported by democratic process.

What other ideas are there for the delivery of people power into the mainstream?

Political parties are always penetrated and controlled from the shadows.  UKIP may be surging and may yet replace the Conservatives and Lib Dems in time.  But what’s the use if they are already controlled from behind the scenes, just another ‘friends of Israel’ party, being readied to bring us down?

The blogs are part of the developing new structure.  The name ‘alternative media’ is often used.  I prefer ‘parallel’ media.  Alternative means optional.  Parallel means we have a competing message and role to play.  That needs a new or parallel political structure, entirely free of the current structure.

2000 member political units

Parallel democracy works in The Falkland Islands.

Mind you that’s a small enough place with under 2000 people.  If the democratic unit was kept at under 2000 people, and each constituency of 2000 counted as one vote in a big decision-making process,  Britain could be covered by approx 20,000 democratic units.  That would be no problem to arrange with instant communication available to everyone by internet.  A parallel decision-making structure could be created.

To prevent the process being subverted at the central counting stage, each unit could text its results to a number of local news organisations as a control on each vote.  The figures could be checked at the central point, as they would have to be published.  The vote could be made highly transparent between 2000 people, with the 2000 split down to smaller units which could actually meet, and 2000 could meet occasionally, using football grounds for example..

The 2000s need not be geographically whole areas, although it would be easier if they were geographical units.  They could, in theory, be created by anyone who wanted to organise a ‘2000’ based on commonality of interest as long as that interest was fully declared.   Membership of a non-geographical unit would bar membership of any other, with all memberships of the 20,000 published online and checkable by instant search.

Secret societies would be banned.  

Each 2000 would be centrally registered and its membership lists maintained online.  Someone could move from one list to another list, by notifying the old 2000 and the new 2000, by speaking to the organisers – writing not considered sufficient – and the two check off the transfer with each other, transferring documentation.

Once a ‘2000’ reached 2000 members, it could not recruit any new members until a vacancy occurred.   Until it had 1500 members, it could not enter a vote.  The vote would be weighted according to the number of people voting, if less than 2000, with 1900 considered a full vote for administrative convenience.

There would need to be checks to ensure no one worked multiple identities, with exposure and sanctions for anyone who tried.  A blacklist.

Starting a 2000 constituency could be done by a small group of determined individuals who wanted to form one.  At 300 or more, they would be allowed to take part in votes, but they would need to find other groups under 1500 to work with to make up their numbers to the necessary 1500.  They could find a pair or pairs to vote with, a bit like MPs pair who have to be absent from a vote.  Pairing constituencies could be brokered online and with a phone call to confirm.  They would need to be voting the same way!

Likewise a ‘2000’ could divide into two or more parts to grow more cells.

A system of 20,000 constituencies would be workable today with technology, and be capable of delivering ‘direct’ democracy, whereas we currently work a representative system of 660 constituencies,  which is hopelessly corrupted, and the centre is far too powerful.  Elections are easily rigged, and  candidates placed by powerful interest groups.  20,000 constituencies of 2000 maximum, where most people knew each other would be much harder to subvert.

The whole thing could be set up on the internet, and run on a single server, requiring only a software structure to be launched, with rules clearly declared at the start.  Anyone want to have a go?

The structure could work in parallel with current structures to begin with, and find areas where the force of democratic will could challenge the status quo.  It could be called Britain’s Parallel Democracy.

The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.

7 Responses to “Time for ‘parallel’ democracy”

  1. Anonymous says:

    I spent some years working in domestic inteligence agencies,
    and the email before this should be compulsory reading as its 100% right

  2. Twig says:

    When Amy Rutland spewed forth her anti ukip tirade on Question Time, she did it on behalf of the “main three parties”, which just confirms that they are all in it together.

    Amy Rutland

  3. Nixon Scraypes says:

    The government,no matter who it is made up of,have to go to the bankers for cash.While we allow private banks to supply our currency as debt they will control the country,it’s as simple as that.In Tradgedy and Hope, Caroll Quigley explains how money is the opposite of wealth and a whole lot more as well,like how the bankers took over the world. He was the official historian for the CFR/RIAA with access to their secret records.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Glad someone saw sense and posted the above comment. What was that famous quote:

    “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws” — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

    And The Bank Of England (that privately owned company) is still owned by the Rothschilds last time I looked.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Hi Tap, Thought there was something funny about Ukip years ago.
    As a member, my election application was rejected, because I had been a former Nationalist.
    In the small print it said the forms were to be inspected by the Red’s, very strange ??

  6. Anonymous says:

    Good article and well informed commenters.

    This why some parts of England are still called 100’s, because the Anglo Saxons organised themselves in just this way. One hundred households per unit.

    The real advantage being that everyone in such small units would personally know each other, making it easy to judge who would be the best representative for the 100 households, at a parliament or larger council.

    ie Chiltern Hundreds


  7. Daranyi says:

    Loved your post. Check out http://www.aparalleldemocracy.com launched by me in Tucson, Arizona, USA in January 2013. We are on to something here. Would love to hear more. The day/era of representative democracy relying on a multiparty system is over. The Village Square is right here, on my touch pad, key pad and lap top. Everyone now has the capacity, or can be given the capacity to paricipate directly in authentic democracy. The convergence of democracy and technology. All first in a Parallel Democracy; then in the real one. Let’s go.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.