In our democracy, voters routinely elect the same mainstream political parties, but they don't realize that most of the policies they would prefer are in fact those of the an "extremist" alternative.

My grandparents consistently favored the Liberal Democrats (in the UK) and seemed to feel as strongly about this as the average soccer fan does about his team. Yet they knew nothing about the party's policies. They imagined they had policies which in fact the LibDems would never have contemplated, and they largely based their strength of feeling on a liking for the personality of the party leader at that time, Paddy Ashdown, especially because he was an ex army officer. The latter fact alone meant that they assumed he would effectively be an almost dictator-like influence which would shake out all the degeneracy which, in reality the LibDems only encourage!

Typically voters know very little about politics. This is one of the main reasons why democracy is such a failure. Admiring the looks of a politician or detecting a similarity to their own appearance has been shown to sway a voter's choice. Millions of people are voting with a completely unrealistic idea of what they are voting for. Wishful thinking abounds. People like to latch on to a mainstream party, usually one of the top two, because they don't want to back a loser, and they project onto that party their fantasies about what they would like the party to stand for. They will look through rose tinted spectacles at everything they hear about the party (generally from watching the news on TV), giving the politicians the benefit of the doubt and refusing to see or hear evil about them. This misplaced loyalty must be comforting. People like to feel that the ship of state is in capable hands, and it would be scary to look closely and discover that this couldn't be further from the truth.

Despite knowing next to nothing about politics and current affairs, many people like to feel that their political affiliation is a part of their own identity. These people, having decided who they support, will carry on voting for that party without any thought. They don't want to think too hard. They are not really interested. And they certainly don't want to support anything controversial or that doesn't have a real chance of winning.

When a government sponsored survey (Yougov) did a survey to see what the UK public think of the policies of the British National Party, it was found that there was overwhelming support. Yet once the respondents were informed to which party these policies belonged, they were shocked and attempted to disown their answers!

If a controversial party ever was to gain sufficient popular support however, they could potentially tap into the fact that they embody the very fantasies that voters like to ascribe to their present chosen party. Why support an illusion when they could get the real thing?

Similarly, once the ideas that Corrupt.org espouses become sufficiently popular, intelligent people will see that modern society is rapidly falling apart and that it is time to look towards a lasting solution to replace it. When the collapse happens, the unintelligent masses will continue to founder around mindlessly, like zombies in a shopping mall, expecting someone to take charge and restore a comfortable normality.

It is always a minority that changes things. Corrupt could some day snowball in popularity once people see we have solutions, and we have reached a certain level of support. A study from the University of Leeds found that it only takes five per cent to influence the crowd's direction. The others will support whoever that is without realizing, and be grateful for it.