7. Identify on the text below with an asterisk where reference details are missing and indicate what is needed at each place using 'S' for surname of writer, 'Y' for year

of publication, and 'P' for page number. Note: Some places may need multiple references. (10 marks) It is regularly reported in media outlets that democracy is in crisis. This question about the legitimacy of the Western model taps into the old philosophical question concerning the justification of democracy. Perkins sets out three common justifications: 1) Democracy treats everybody equally in the sense of granting every person a single vote no matter who they are. 2) Democracy allows for individual autonomy in affording citizens the opportunity to shape their own lives in accordance with their personal desires and values. 3) Democracy leads to better decision-making and better overall outcomes because there are more brains on the job than under an autocratic system. A number of critics have argued that each of these justifications are significantly weaker when applied to a First-Past-The-Post system where 1) voters in marginal constituencies have more influence than other voters, 2) voters in non-marginal constituencies have little ability to shape their own lives via the mechanism of voting, and 3) FPTP skews rational debates in favour of an adversarial tribal politics/nwith political communication targeted at a narrow band of swing voters. As one writer puts it: "You couldn't design a worse system if you tried - if you're worried about equality, autonomy, or good decision making." Several recent works examine possible solutions to these problems with the electoral system. Yet other theorists argue that a more fundamental cultural problem lurks. Each of these justifications for democracy implicitly presupposes that citizens possess sufficient critical thinking skills. As Teller notes, these include the ability to dissect logical fallacies in misleading political arguments, cut through bias in their own thinking or the thinking of others, and critically assess key sources of information such as media articles, social media memes, or political speeches. If a citizen does not possess these skills, then they are more likely to be misled, manipulated, or convinced to behave - and vote - in ways that do not truly reflect their own rational self- interest. This idea has been developed across a range of works by Peacocke. As Butragueño observes; "How can two people have a genuinely equal - and meaningful - say in society if one person unknowingly regurgitates the last thing that they happened to read whilst another is capable of rationally reflecting on evidence and forming their own view?" In addition to this, scholars are united in concluding that the prospects for good decision- making in the polling booth are poor when the education system is focused chiefly on the short-term recall of facts in examinations rather than the long term development of independent thinking skills.