Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] [EM] Helping the Pirate Party to vanish

[Alexander Praetorius <citizen AT serapath.de>]

On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com> wrote:

Alex and Marc,

Alex said:
> > It will happen fast.  Enabling people to move freely among toolset
> > platforms (by a solution we haven't yet discussed), will
> > necessarily enable them to move among political parties *without
> > political consequences*.  This will destroy the party system.
>

> ... I feel the same.  Once, people can move freely among toolset

> plattforms, this will be the case, but at least in germany, the
> pirate party, as a toolset plattform in itself, will probably be the

> only political party, which is open to such a solution. ...

If no second party were willing to help, then we might create a new
party.

yes, BUT :-)
...to build a party and trust, so that many people are willing to vote for it is a very tough thing to do.

I am very happy, that the pirates exist. Luckily, the pirates are a kind of "anti party" :-)
Its a worldwide movement. If u ask people in any country if they know this or that political party,

they probably will only have heard about it, if its a party which is active in their own country,

or if its "republicans" or "democrats", because everyone knows the major parties of the USA.

..or ... its the pirate party :-)
...that says SOMETHING.
The pirates are the political aspect of the open source movement.
The pirate party was born online and its motor is the "spirit of the web" ...metaphorically spoken :P

 

We could equip it with a position-forming (primary) toolset of
its own, preferably something different than the Pirates are currently
prototyping.  Votorola is available for this purpose, for instance.

YES and NO.

In order to work, pieces must fit together.
And there is at least ONE major gap, an thats the coupling device :-)
Human-Computer-Interface must neatly fit together and currently it's far from that point.

what i see in votorola is two fold:
1. it's a lovely vision
2. it's a "proof of concept".

but it's NOT a product ...yet.
There's many aspects to a real product.
The reason why linux did never succeed in becoming mainstream is, that its not a product.
(and products dont have to cost money!)

 

But the actual toolset doesn't matter so much.

NO! ...IT DOES MATTER A LOT!
It's very true, that its extremly important to break the network effect and enable people to move freely

between tools, but in order for people to actually USE ANY Tool AT ALL .. there have to be NON-CRAPPY Tools.
All i have seen until today, is total crap!
Sure, there is adhocracy, there is liquid feedback, there is vilfredo, there is onethousandandone toolsets,

but they all SUCK!

They can do what they can and are somehow interesting and proof of concept, ... but there is a reason,

why people in reality use EMAIL LISTS and WIKIS and eventually ETHERPADS and MUMBLE and the like.
There is a reason, why you are NOT ABLE to use Votorola and some kind of voting/delegation mechanism

to replace the job offers or "wants" you currently search for the votorola project.

Votorola is great and there is a reason why i'm sticking to all this, because i believe in the vision.
But all it currently does is stealing peoples time. Its not usable and its the same with all the other tools out there.

They are impractical and currently only of "scientific use".
If you want to know what is needed, look at how mainstream people currently actually REALLY solve their problems.
It's email

It's wikis

It's telephon/skype/mumble

It's linkedIn/facebook&co.

It's twitter

It's google calendar and the like

....

There are so many tools, which all solve "one aspect" of what people need.

And because people use a huge variety of devices (mobile, desktop) (windows, linux, android, mac osx, ...)
and they have to work together... html5 as technology in itself is, in my opinion, the only way-to-go.

 

What matters is that
we enable the individual users (members) to range freely across
toolsets/parties and settle where they prefer.

YES, BUT :-)
in order for tools to open up...

in order for tools to be used by people AT ALL...

there have to be AWESOME TOOLS, but i cant see those.
And with "awesome", i dont refer to functionality, but to user experience and ease of use and stuff like that.

This is not about bling and bells and whistles, but its about looking at peoples problems.

Whats their problems and how do they currently solve those.

Thats the "place" where you have to pick them up.

I dont know if the USA currently has a playground where people could be easily picked up to use such tools which currently do not exist yet,

but in germany and some other countries, that playground is the pirate party.

There are so many working groups in the pirate party and some of them with hundreds of members and active people.
But you could also start with metagovernment itself.
what do we use? MAILINGLIST + WIKI

Can people like content or vote for content on-the-fly when it comes up on the mailinglist? NO
Does stuff which is said in skype or mumble find its way into the wiki automatically? NO
Is it easy to create an ISSUE (like development of software) and let people spent ressources on it? NO
(at least u did not succeed with the "wants" or job offers which you have posted)

So the tools doesnt even work for ourselves, how is it supposed to work for others???

 

> ... So in order to make open toolset plattforms interesting, there
> has to be at least ONE party, which supports them ...

At least two, I think.  We'll eliminate the network effect that binds
the users to the bigger toolset/party.

there must be the elimination of the network effect, but before it can work in practice,

there must be pressure to force others tools into that kind of thinking.
This pressure can be build, if there is at least ONE AWESOME TOOLSET,

which is actually USED IN PRACTICE, by A LOT OF PEOPLE (e.g. the pirates)

to successfully solve REAL ISSUES :-)
BECAUSE: This will use the network effect to build up pressure to force all the other tools

into abandoning the network effect alltogether :-)

So whats important is, that whichever awesome tool leads, it must stay open all the time.

 

In order to demonstrate this,
however, we require at least two parties.  Immediately both parties
will be destroyed *as parties*.  That's necessary, because otherwise
nothing changes and the world just yawns. ;^)

I don't think anything will happen immediately.
I agree with all u have said in the long term, but in the short term,

its all about people and their observations which eventually lead to changes of habits,

but that takes time.

The question is not so much about two parties using the system and once the avalanche

has been started, it can never be stopped (thats trivial), its more about how to get

two parties to use it or at least one and later maybe a second party.

From the perspective of a "sales person" (even if no money is involved at all), the sales person has to offer something.

What is it that could be offered in terms of immediate solutions? what problems can be solved TODAY with toolsets or votorla?
I say NONE, and thats the problem.

It has to start with something small. It has to solve some problem but it has to solve it better than all the other alternatives out there.

its then possible to add a second thing that will be solved equally awesome and then a third... and so forth.

Sooner or later the network effect might kick in, but thats not a problem, because metagovernment and its member projects are committed

to stay open and will never exploit the network effect, instead there will be a helpful attitude towards everyone who wants to join.

 

If the Pirates cannot stomach this (it's a bitter pill to swallow),
then we might create two new parties expressly for this purpose.

A person only has a limited lifespan. Lets be generous and let that be 100 years.
How long will it take to create two new parties and create that traction which pirates currently build up?
Is there other people out there who are so ambitious to found a new party? ...if so, why do only the pirates exist?
What if the pirates may grow frustrated and end their commitment, will it be likely to create another two parties?
...probably now, because why wont those two new parties fail when the pirates did?

Sure, in the long run, the open source movement will break through mainstream, and it might take a year or 10 or 100...
...the question is not if, but how to do it in the fastest possible way, so that eventually we can see it with our own eyes.

 

> ... so people eventually vote for the pirates in order to get the

> results of the open toolset plattforms into laws, which might force
> the other parties to open up too, and as soon as they do, the party

> system will be destroyed. ...

Yes, but already the demonstration above has politically destroyed the
two parties.

there was an assumption.
IF two parties join
THEN they will be destroyed.
...but how do you get even a single party to join in in the first place?
The pirates might be the first party and eventually the network effect might force a second or third party in.

 

True, they can expect to receive more votes in the next
election, but never again can a party candidate *as such* be elected
to office.  The open parties all share the same candidate list, which
they discuss and vote using their primary toolsets.

yes, but thats again long term vision.
in the beginning that will not be the case i believe.
The pirates will use the toolset to vote for its issues and its candidates.
Then maybe, because many people join that plattform, because they have more power than with the traditional approach,

it might grow and sooner or later the network effect might kick in.

...thats the latest point where other party will start to use the same tools too in order to survive.
So this is the moment where you have your SECOND PARTY or even a third and so forth...

In the beginning, each party will vote for their candidates and their issues and at that point,

it will be "the old traditional structures" (silo structure) modeled in a new environment, which is the plattform and its toolsets.
So even if the actual structure (voting on issues and candidates) is still the same, the (silo structure) is gone!

AND THAT WILL BE THE BEGINNING OF THE END of the old system :-)
Because now people can communicate across parties and try to "steal subtrees of voters" for a common issue instead for the old red team vs blue team thinking.


 

So the elected
candidates are independent of all parties.  (If it's the Pirates then,
you see how quickly you are destroyed as a party.  No Pirate *as such*
will ever again be elected to office.  You commit to that.)

No, i think this view is correct, but slightly biased.
There might be several "phases of transition"
At first, people might use toolsets and do everything the way they are used to,
and they will exactly use it because it enables them to do everything they way are used to,

but only slightly better or with less effort.
Even in this phase, different pirates will be elected and different issues will be voted for,

because ALL pirates participate or at least more than during the "old days".
Then other pirates might use the same tooling and use it in the old way, but ...

..what comes with it, is the option for every participant to move freely between parties
and hence people, no matter if pirates or democrats or republicans or whatever might still be elected,

but if they are, its for what they, as persons stand for or what their skillset is and NOT because of who they know

or what party they are member of.
So the parties as such (in the sense of blue team vs red team) will have no effect anymore, and if pirates or republicans or democrats

will get elected, its not for the blue team vs red team reason anymore, because those boundaries will have been blurred beyond recognition

 

Likewise, the open parties all share the same leader.  The leader has
no authority as such within the parties.  His/her only function is to
become Chancellor when the parties win the federal election - then to
make a huge number of official appointments, directly and indirectly.

dont understand what you are talking about here :-)

 

Those appointments too are discussed and voted using the primary
toolsets years in advance of the election.  This attracts users, and
this is where the party system starts to seriously fall apart.

maybe, but i cant really understand what you are saying here.
 

Those
users are not going to turn around and vote for a conventional party
on election day.

yes, this is the phenomenon that will eventually kick in the network effect,

to force all the other parties, to join the "open system".

thats what i was trying to say, maybe from a slightly different perspective??? :-)

 

They will instead vote for one of the open parties
(no matter which, the effect is always exactly the same) and that too
will be known years in advance of the election.  Anyway, this how we
figured it.

So two parties (as such) are destroyed immediately.

No, i dont think so.
I dont think there will be NEW open parties out of NOWHERE and there wont be multiples of them.
It will be existing parties who adopt toolsets and hopefully ones that are commited to the "breaking the network effect" approach.
One of those parties might be the pirates (when it comes to germany), but the green party or others are equally good.

Once, ONE relevant political party (no matter if its the new pirates or already established greens or whatsoever),

has adopted the system, and it really SOLVES a REAL PROBLEM for the party members, then its very likely,

that more people will use it and eventually the party will be more open and will come to better solutions and will start to grow

and the network effect might kick in.

...this will make other parties vanish, BUT of course, they dont want to vanish, so they adopt the same system.

...and now, superficially, it looks as if nothing has changed.
It's still the same parties as before and they still vote for their issues and their candidates the same way they were used to during the old days.

(and from the top down perspective) ...thats the leaders perspective, it will look like as if nothing has changed, only a "new tool" underneath.

...but from the bottom up (means from a regular voters perspectives) it will be a new world.

The old structures, which are still effective will be effective for the time it will take for HABITS TO FADE when they are not enforced any longer.

The REAL BOUNDARIES are gone and thus, the habits of blue team vs red team will fade... might take some months, maybe some years,

but people will start to build ad hoc cross party alliances, which will be ISSUE BASED instead of blue team vs red team based.

Thats who parties will be destroyed. Their RELEVANCE will FADE :-) ...it wont happen over night, but it will happen for sure.

THATs how i see it.

 

The party system
as a whole is not seriously shaken until the primary toolsets start to
gain users.

how will it start? :-)

 

The timing depends, therefore, on how many developers we
can attract to push the toolsets into beta.

I am a software developer (i have a java background, i am not so experienced, i offered my _javascript_ skills)

A software developer is nothing that you are currently searching for, at least thats what the "job vacancys" seem to imply.

 

But if we attract just a
few more developers, then that'll be a vote of confidence in what we
predict, and we'll attract more on that basis.  It'll snowball.

It'll snowball, but in order to start snowballing, there must be some kind of product, which really solves something of importance in a very efficient way.

Votorola does effectively solve everything, but if you would really use it in practice, it would be very slow, because currently it is only a proof of concept and a broad vision, but not an efficient solution for every day life. It cannot start as a efficient solution to ALL ASPECTS which are encompassed by the votorola vision from the beginning, it can evolve into that stepp by step but has to start with ONE PROBLEM at the time and try to solve that very well.

This first problem must be chosen well, because there has to be a strategic perspective to grow this tiny piece into the full blown vision :-)

 

Can anyone see a flaw?  Please point to anything that seems doubtful.

Yes, i pointed out everything that came to my mind.
I dont see a flaw, i think you've said somehow the same as i did, but it might be slightly different perspectives or maybe distortions caused by one's personal "colored glasses" :-)

 

> Which is the "election methods list"?
> I'd like to join that list :-)

Here it is, Alex.
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/

thanks, have done so.

 

Marc said:
> I am not sure about the speed things will fall apart. But in general
> it will happen.  And YES - let's move forward into this direction
> with joined forces.
>
> We are already on the same track, but we need to shape our minds.
>
> Let's do it!

Good!  I see no problem with the standards for porting user data that
you described.  I don't think we'll get stuck on those.  I'm more
concerned about the method of eliminating the network effect.  I think
there's only one feasible method, but I want to hear your thoughts.

What is the network effect? :-)
A network effect will only exist if there is an inside and an outside.
If all are within and structures are as everyone wishes they were, there will be no network effect.

A network effect can be seen at least from two perspectives.

...1. it sucks aways everything into something that i am not part of

...2. it brings everything into ONE and i am part of and therefor things are no longer devided.

So if there is an OPEN PLATFORM, with many toolsets that could be easily substituted by one another,

... what exactly is that?

You could say we already have such a thing, it's called the web standards or maybe basic stuff like

the protocols stacked above one another in an OSI model way, where one layer is stacked above another.

a few decades back, people thought: "if only everything was open and we could all use an underlying method",

then people could move more freely between software, because there would not be a network effect because of protocols and stuff.

same with languages. If you speak english, you can much more easily move in the english speaking part of the world than you could without.

The better translation services become (maybe we might soon end up with a BABEL FISH), the easier it will become to even move in parts of the world

where you dont speak language (this is a vote-mirroring-machanism)
=> What you say in your language, will be translated into their language

So the best possible thing one could possibly achive is to move forward but stay OPEN, so that others can join in.
This way, you use all your strength to create a network effect (and so will others).

The difference is, if YOU succeed, then all others can join you and will not loose their investments or at least only their selfish investments.

This might also be exactly WHY you win and can create the network effect, because you follow a vision that encompasses everyones best interest and not only your own best interest.

Its a lot harder to think about a vision or a solution that will be in everyones best interest in the long run, but if you manage to do so, you have a huge advantage over all the other approaches.

 

Should we discuss sometime by Mumble?  My hours this coming week are
roughly 0800 to 2000 UTC.  Or 1200 to 2400 the week after.

Mike

Alexander Praetorius said:
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com> wrote:
>
> > (cc AG Politik, Election Methods, apologies for cross-posting)
> >
> > Marc said:
> > > Sorry that I have put it this way. Unfortunately it is realy hard
> > > for me to express my thoughts in english language, because it's not
> > > my mother language and sometimes I feel like lost in translation...
> >
> > I appreciate the effort you're putting into this lengthy thread.  You
> > must have other important things to work on, too.  But I assure you,
> > your English is excellent.  I understand your words.  I don't think
> > our misunderstanding is about words, but rather about larger concepts.
> > I hope we can clear it up shortly.  Please refer once more to the two
> > choices we, as technicians, have for obtaining users: * **
> >
> >   (1) Eliminate the network effects between platforms, thus leveling
> >       the playing field and enabling the users to range freely from
> >       platform to platform.
> >
> >       Beseitigen Sie die Netzwerk-Effekte zwischen den Plattformen,
> >       so Einebnung des Spielfeldes und ermöglicht den Benutzern,
> >       reichen frei von Plattform zu Plattform.
> >
> >   (2) Rely on network effects to force all users onto our own
> >       platform, thus establishing it as a de-facto monopoly.
> >
> >       auf Netzwerk-Effekte Vertrauen, um alle Benutzer auf die
> >       eigene Kraft Plattform und schafft so als einer
> >       de-facto-Monopol.
> >
> > > I am fine with (1) and therefore (a).
> >
> > We are close to an understanding, then.  We both want (1) and (a).
> > Let's move on to discussing the solution.  This is where it gets
> > interesting for the Pirate Party.
> >
> > > But thinking one step beyond, (b) and (c) are NOT conflicting with
> > > (a) from my point of view.
> >   . . .
> >
> > > The SOLUTION should...
> > > a) ... enable free choice of the tooling for every users.
> > > b) ... cover all parts of the decision making process.
> > > c) ... make all discourse related data entered by any user available
> > >        to others.
> >
> > You understand that user freedom (a) cannot be realized except by
> > eliminating (1) the network effects that underpin toolset lock-in.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
> > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netzwerkeffekt
> >
> > In obtaining users for our tools, therefore, how do you propose to
> > eliminate those network effects?  What is your solution for that?
> >
> > > > (And again the future of the Pirate Party is bound up in this,
> > > > even if they don't see it yet.  So altogether it's a very
> > > > interesting topic.)
> > >
> > > Unfortunately from time to time it seems to me you are baked into
> > > old belief systems. The Pirate Party is just a vehicle to ride with
> > > for a while. It's necessary to speed up things. Not more. Not less.
> >
> > Things will go very fast indeed if we keep on talking, so much so that
> > the party (as such) won't be able to handle the speed.  But nor will
> > the other parties, particularly the mainstream ones with members in
> > the Bundestag and state assemblies.  All will be shaken to pieces.
> >
> > Do you know why?  My own thinking on this has improved in the last
> > month, thanks to discussions in the Election Methods list.
> >
>
> Which is the "election methods list"?
> I'd like to join that list :-)
>
>
>
> >
> > Last month, you said:
> > > What should I say? I have currently no crystal ball around to
> > > predict the future. The only thing I know about the future is that
> > > it never comes like I thought.
> >
> > Just look at the present for what it is *technically* and you will see
> > the future.  The future hinges on something you already understand in
> > the present: position forming (Standpunktbildung), or primary voting
> > as I call it.  A political party is just a vehicle for position
> > forming.  Technically speaking, it is nothing but a "toolset platform"
> > for that purpose.  Here I don't mean just the Pirate Party and other
> > online parties, but *all* parties.  Look at them through a technicians
> > eyes.  All are toolset platforms.
> >
>
> Technically you are correct, but parties have a special standing within the
> current system.
> Elected representatives are the only people who can pass bills, so what the
> pirate party is,
> is a hack in order to inject that, wich will be discussed and voted for on
> plattforms, into the process,
> which converts it into real laws.
>
> At least in germany, the pirate party will probably be the only party,
> which can make those kind of plattforms popular.
> So in the beginning, i imagine, that such plattforms will be use more or
> less exclusively by pirates.
> Once the media recognizes this, it might spread beyond the pirates and
> other parties will perhaps observe the pirate party
> and other plattforms and consider the results when they vote for laws.
>
> So, once all the parties take the results of those exchanging plattforms
> into account, parties might become irrelevant,
> but still, only representatives can make that, which is voted for on
> plattforms, legally binding.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > But mainly the process of changing democracy will take up to three
> > > generations of man. Today our society is not prepared to take over
> > > the power. So that's nothing I want to take care about right now...
> >
> > It will happen fast.  Enabling people to move freely among toolset
> > platforms (by a solution we haven't yet discussed), will necessarily
> > enable them to move among political parties *without political
> > consequences*.  This will destroy the party system.
>
>
> +1 :-)
> I feel the same.
> Once, people can move freely among toolset plattforms, this will be the
> case,
> but at least in germany, the pirate party, as a toolset plattform in
> itself, will probably be the only
> political party, which is open to such a solution.
> Other parties will remain closed toolset plattforms and because they have
> direct access to the law making process,
> they can afford it.
> So in order to make open toolset plattforms interesting, there has to be at
> least ONE party, which supports them,
> so people eventually vote for the pirates in order to get the results of
> the open toolset plattforms into laws,
> which might force the other parties to open up too, and as soon as they do,
> the party system will be destroyed.
> If they dont open up, the pirate party will take over and people will take
> care of the pirate party not beeing corrupted.
>
>
>
> > Immediately it
> > will begin to fall apart at the seams.  In technical terms, it will
> > become rationalized into purely technical functions on the one hand,
> > and purely political on the other.  The political parties as we know
> > them will have vanished.
> >
> > Are you comfortable with this?  Should we make it happen?
> >
>
> Hope so :-) ...and i guess Marc thinks so too.
>

> --
>
> Best Regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
> ***********************************************
> Alexander Praetorius
> Rappstraße 13
> D - 60318 Frankfurt am Main
> Germany

> *[skype] *alexander.praetorius
> *[mail] *citizen AT serapath.de <alexander.praetorius AT serapath.de>
> *[web] *http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Benutzer:Serapath
> ***********************************************

marc said:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Thank you. Just one quick reply for now, because I am in a hurry:
>
> Alex wrote:
> > Mike wrote:
> >> Immediately it
> >> will begin to fall apart at the seams.  In technical terms, it will
> >> become rationalized into purely technical functions on the one hand,
> >> and purely political on the other.  The political parties as we know
> >> them will have vanished.
> >>
> >>Are you comfortable with this?  Should we make it happen?
> >
> > Hope so :-) ...and i guess Marc thinks so too.
>
> I am not sure about the speed things will fall apart. But in general it will
> happen.
> And YES - let's move forward into this direction with joined forces.
>
> We are already on the same track, but we need to shape our minds.
>
> Let's do it!
>
> Cheers
> marc

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

--

Best Regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen

***********************************************

Alexander Praetorius

Rappstraße 13

D - 60318 Frankfurt am Main

Germany

[skype] alexander.praetorius

[mail] citizen AT serapath.de

[web] http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Benutzer:Serapath 

***********************************************