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

[Alexander Praetorius <citizen AT serapath.de>]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com> wrote:

Hi Alex,

First I summarize some points.

  (a) Candidate-wise, the open list primary is also open to party
      candidates, not just to non-party candidates.  So Union, SPD and
      Pirate candidates may receive primary votes of support, too.
      http://zelea.com/w/Stuff:Votorola/p/assembly_election/multi-winner

      Same for the open executive primary.  It is open to the current
      party leaders.  So maybe Cx here is the Union's Merkel, and Dx
      the SPD's Steinbrück:
      http://zelea.com/w/Stuff:Votorola/p/power_structuring#SN

  (b) Voter-wise, both open primaries are open to party members, too.
      Any German elector may vote in the open primaries, with or
      without having joined a party.

  (c) The open primaries are continuous, running year in and year out
      in advance of the upcoming election (say 2017).  The purpose of
      the list primary is to agree on all the members who will sit in
      the Bundestag after that election.
      http://zelea.com/w/Stuff:Votorola/p/assembly_election/multi-winner#E

      So that diagram is incomplete.  The lists should show additional
      candidates above A, below I, and maybe in between.  Those
      candidates (not shown) are elected to the 11 greyed-out seats by
      electors who vote for the Union, SPD, Pirate Party, and so
      forth.  But note that those party supporters could just as
      easily have voted for one of the open parties.  The results
      would have been more-or-less the *same* regardless.

      This is the crucial point.  It follows from (a) and (b), as I
      explain further below.  It doesn't matter how many people vote
      for open parties vs closed parties on election day; the open
      party list is elected regardless.

  (d) No political party hosts an open electoral primary (neither a
      list primary nor an executive).  All primaries hosted by parties
      are closed primaries, including those of the Pirate Party.
      Points (a-c) do not apply to those primaries.

> Yes, that's technically a nice approach [open primaries]. Other

> parties could join this system if they "drop" their candidate lists
> and instead use the open list, right?

Yes.  They must also accept the current leader of the open executive
primary as the formal party leader.  So if any one of them wins a
plurality of seats, then the President (I guess it's he) will invite
that leader to be Chancellor.

> ... But although i can see it working technically, i fail to see how

> this will become a reality, because no matter if there are 1, 2 or
> 10 or even more "open parties" on the ballot on election day, nobody
> would vote for them.

An elector who participates in the open primaries will probably want
to vote for an open party.  The elector need not participate in the
primaries, of course, but open primaries are more meaningful and
interesting (c and d) than closed primaries.

Yes, but WHY should anyone become an elector who participates in the open primaries in the first place?

Maybe a handful of people will do it because for ideologic reasons, but even if its 10 or 20 people, it might probably stay a somehow "sandboxed island".

How does this get started? I doubt there will be people out of nowhere using the tools, it will be those people who are already motivated to use such tools an crave to adobt new and better tools, but wont leave their current communities, because they have already built relationships and have put a lot of effort into communities current results and structures.
They will never leave all this only to adopt a new toolset. The toolset has to come to them.

 

> In germany, you normally have a dozen or several dozen of electable
> parties on the ballot on election day, but most people will never
> vote for anything else than what they already know.  The first time
> the pirates were electable, many people laughed when they read the
> ballot and for the first time in their life learned about the pirate
> party ;-) personell had to remind them, that they please be quit and
> not comment on any parties :D

But it no longer matters what party the elector votes for (open or
not).  The election results are more-or-less the same regardless (c).

It matters.
Because if parties who are committed to inject the results of the open primaries into the legislative process get many votes, that will people motivate to continue to use the open primary tooling, because there is hope that all the effort will have real effects.
The open primaries will be meaningless and a waste of time if there is not at least hope, that a movement will grow to put the results into the real legislative process.
 

(e) The mass media will inform people of this strange news.  People
will want to know what it means.  Journalists will explain: "The
parties are dying."

No, i dont think so.
They only started to cover pirates, when they had a lot of voters voting for them. Currently they dont cover pirate stuff at all.
The media covers those things which have impact to some degree and impact means, a lot of people are affected by something.
So if you have open primaries and two open paper parties, that means, its still a lifeless construct.
Media will not cover it. Media will not waste time on it i believe.
If a huge party or several small communities (that maybe be in sum considered to be huge) adopt this kind of toolset and many many people start using it, then eventually the media will start to cover it sometimes and look into this phenomenon.

You already assume people using it and usage grows and everything else follows from that, but i dont see how people will start to use it in the first place. Whats the strategy?
You say, there should be at least two open primary toolsets collaborating and implementing vote mirroring and then there will be two open paper parties.... ....but i fail to see the strategy how people will start using it.

I think the only way to accomplish this is to choose an existing community with a need for better tooling and cater to their needs, so that they eventually adopt the tooling. Then this has to be done with several communities and the technology behind the tooling will help to bring those different communities together in an open primary system. They dont have to understand this right from the start. They might find out later.

Which communities are those one should focus on because of limited resources? I dont know. I'd say the pirates are promising, but there might be many other candidates.

 

> yes, i understand the technical approach and i like it very much.
> What i still fail to see is how people will start using the tools.
> I have a feeling that they wont. In order to have real users using
> the tools and spreading the word, the usability has to be very very
> good and people should be able to re-use knowledge they got from
> their previously used tools (e.g. wiki, facebook, email,

> mailinglists, forum, twitter, etc...) ...

A tool developer likes to see unfinished tools, especially tools with
high potential impact.  So this is no serious obstacle.  If it's only
developers using the primary toolsets at first, then no problem.  They
will get it ready for others ASAP.

Developers are not politicians. They will never really use their tools and spent a massive amount of time on discussing issues.
Their thinking is different. They only have one vote and spending time in the process is a waste of time. Its better to improve the tooling so that "thing will solve" itself.
I think the major problem in order to advance is, that votorola based tooling doesnt exist or at least doesnt cater to the needs of real communities. It doesnt matter which communities to start with, but one has to target specific communities and develop tooling that target exactly their needs but on the other hand, are votorola based open primary toolsets, so that one community after another can be targeted and barriers between those communities will be teared down as a consequence.

 

> yes, [the open parties] are a technical "hack" right from the

> beginning in order to inject the open primaries into the current
> system.  Thats a good thing, but still, its necessary to gather
> users which use the open primaries and spread the word about which
> "technical vehicles" to elect on election day.  This whole thing can
> only take off the ground, if there is a MOVEMENT behind it, thus a
> lot of users with similar motivation which makes them use open
> primaries to change the world for the better.

I think the motivation is (d).  Nowhere else can I (a German citizen)
discuss and vote on the membership of the Bundestag, the candidacy of
the Chancellor, and the thousands of official appointments (direct and
indirect) of the Chancellor's office.

yes you can.
join the pirates and you can discuss and vote on the membership.
you suggest, one should instead join the "open primaries" to discuss and vote on the membership.
People dont care, they will fail to see the difference between pirates, SPD or "open primary".
It's just another something you could eventually vote on but as long as the majority of people will not vote on it, its a wasted vote.

 

Movement or no movement, the
open primary is the only way to participate in that.  If I don't like
the primary toolsets that are available, then either I put some work
into improving one of them, or I do without.

If, for example, one specific open primary toolset is catered exactly to the pirates needs and they start using it,

its already possible to use any other open primary tooling and mirror the results to the pirates tooling.
So you have already created the ability to move freely between open primary toolsets.

But at the same time, you have gained a massive amount of users and can now move on to the next community.
At the same time, you have not used the network effect in a way to discriminate other projects or developers.
The only thing they have to do is adopt their tooling to comply with the open primary toolset standard and this will enable them to easily get users if their features are good, because people can use the nice features and will NOT loose the people they want to discuss with, as it would happen when they would like to quit facebook for another social network with nicer features...

...so what else do you want???

 

> There might be other people as well, which are not pirates, but
> still very "open source mindend", maybe mostly software developers
> from all walks of life, and other geeks... BUT i think many of them
> dont use (or waste) their times in discussing political issues.
> It's the pirates who do this. If the pirates use the plattform, they
> can kickstart the open primary system as a whole.

Yes, the Pirates as people can do that.

> What other strategy do you have in mind?  Just gathering a handful
> of people and somehow manage to put "technical vehicles" on the
> ballot on election day will not convert huge masses of people to
> vote for these. Most of them will not even have heard about the
> approach and they wont care.

The news media will tell them, "It no longer matters which party you
vote for.  The results are always going to be the same as we agreed in
the open electoral primaries.  The parties are dying." (e)

hahaha :-) No! It will take a very long time until the media will tell anything even remotely similar to that, because they dont understand a thing of what is going on. An example would be bitcoin. People's oppinions on bitcoin are extremly volatile, because bitcoin causes a lot of inspiration and peoples thoughts go cracy about it, but they cannot comprehend what will happen in the long term, because that does not only depend on the technology as such, but also on how people react to it and not only those who see bitcoin as a chance, but also those who see bitcoin as a threat and one cannot know for sure which party will come up with the better tricks to decide a potential issue in their favor.
So i dont think the media will tell it. They wont notice it at all, then maybe they cover it sometimes and will see it just as a new approach, a slightly improved Liquid Feedback or wiki or mailnglist or whatever the tooling will look like.
Then maybe they will praise the pirates for beeing very open and allowing non-pirates to participate, then eventually other communities (like minor parties across germany) will join in and media will tell the pirates have created alliances with other parties, maybe even with parties not compatible with pirates core values.
Then pirates will respond and tell, NO, its only the tools that allow them to participate, but look at the votes, pirates are opposed to their views most of the time.... and there will be a media discussion.
In the end, all those non-pirates and pirates and "allies" might vote for one political vehicle (e.g. the pirate party) to get the results into the real legislative process.
Some might start to register all different kinds of flavors of "open parties" in order to make sure, the pirates dont hijack all the votes they were receiving, but only to make the open primary results come true, and all those minor parties will receive votes... AND:
The open primaries will end up as becoming a very flexible COALTION BUILDING TOOL between all parties which are commited to it.
...now, if that works and will become a major force in the parliament, which could really take time, only then eventually will the media start writing about the decline of established parties and all those who are unhappy with the esablished parties, even members of the established parties themselves, will look into the open primary thing.

Dont you think it will be like this?

 

> > No practice for e-democracy has yet been fully developed.  (Maybe
> > Votorola is the closest, but it's not good enough.)  That's why
> > you don't see production toolsets yet.
>
> so let's create a "demo toolset" for votorola. One which is tailored
> for the needs of an existing community.  might be the pirates, but
> might also be a different community.  learn about the current
> tooling they use in order to do work and try to social engineer
> votorola based tools into their workflow.  To be able to do so, the
> tools have to technically (UI usability) make use of the existing
> habits of the communities, so they should try to mimic the behavior
> of current tooling as closely as possible.  Once the communitiy has
> switchted, the UI and tooling can grow with its users, but first it
> has to pick up people where they are.

If we start with the open electoral primaries (as we're discussing),
then the practice is well enough understood already.  We only need two
toolset providers to host the alpha prototype and start coding the
beta for the electoral tools.  That will bring into the field more
developers and other resources, and some of the developers will switch
over to alpha prototyping the normative primaries (legislation, plans,
policies, and what not).  That's where the bulk of the work is.

So the way to move forward is to bring two toolsets together to
eliminate the primary network effect (i.e. host an open primary).
That's the fastest way I can see.

yes, but which two toolsets? I feel the community aspect should be added.
In addition to what you've said, there should be communities chosen for strategic reasons.
...to make it even faster.

(That will not prevent any other communities from using any one of the two first toolsets, but

at least it will make sure, that the communities targeted in the first place are huge,

so the features are catered to their needs)

 

> > > there must be the elimination of the network effect, but before
> > > it can work in practice, there must be pressure [from the Pirate
> > > Party] to force others tools into that kind of thinking.  ...
> >
> > ;^) The pressure's too much for Votorola.  We surrender!
>
> no. maybe i were not able to say what i meant.  In order for other
> people and communities (like mainstream political parties) to use
> votorola based tools, one or several communities have to use

> votorola based tools first. ...

(Just to be sure, this is not about Votorola.  Open primaries are open
to all primary toolsets, of course, without exception.  The voter can
discuss and vote using the toolset of his/her own choice.)

yes, maybe i should have used other wording. sry.

 

> ... So .... THEN ... if this all works... will the current

> mainstream parties be put UNDER PRESSURE to adopt "open primaries"
> too and as a consequence will parties as such start to vanish
> completely.

But the Pirate Party has not adopted an open primary (d).

They have.

An open primary cannot be anonymous. People have to authenticate themselves in some way.
Pirates do not deny people to join in :-)
You can participate in crafting the party program, even if you are not member of the pirates.
I worked in the largest working groups without beeing a member for a full year.
I then decided to register to be able to vote on issues in later phases of the process which makes

stuff an official pirate position.

What i want to say is, that it already happened, that people got elected by the pirates, because they participated for a long time, but only became formal pirates a couple of days prior to their election.
So the formal status of beeing a pirate is, because its enforced by laws.

So in theory it should be quite possible to only join the pirates a day prior to the election and leave the pirates right after the election took place. This is only formal bogus.

The important thing is, that you can start voting on everything and discussing everything and are encouraged to do so from DAY 1.
In contrast, if you join the CDU, you cannot vote on anything if you did not have climbed the "social ladder".
Pirates allow people to discuss every position of the party program and edit it and so forth, and even vote on it, but in more later phases, it requires you to become a pirate to vote, but you can leave again after the voting has took place. It's required by the laws.

 

Maybe some
Pirates (as people) will join in the development work, but the party
organization cannot participate except by first destroying itself.

I dont see the difference between pirates as people and the pirate party.
As soon as all those people changed their minds, the pirate party will be gone.

 

The same is true of the CDU/CSU Union and the SPD.  So the Pirate
Party is not applying any pressure to these other parties in favour of
open primaries.  (Conceivably it might by first destroying itself, but
I think that's too much to expect of any party organization.)

The CDU/CSU and will never use digital tools in order to enable all of their members to participate.

Only because the pirates enable internal grass roots policies instead of oligarchic systems, are other parties FORCED to adopt some of those practices and the green party and the liberals made some steps in that direction.
Without the pirates and their success, their would have been no need for the liberals and greens to change their behavior.
some people or communities must lead new practices which inspire all people who are stuck with a certain problem (like not beeing able to really participate in a fair maner) to follow them.
So those, who do not adopt those new practices will start to loose members and THATs what puts up the pressure for them to adopt or sink into insignificance.

 

No, I think the pressure is felt equally by all parties, and it falls
mostly on the party supporters.  If SPD supporters do not participate
(b) in the open electoral primaries, then SPD candidates (a) will do
poorly in the results.  The same applies to the Pirates.  They must
participate in the open primary, or the Pirate candidates will fall
behind in the results.  This is the pressure.

YES, but this assumes, that the open primaries in itself are of any significance at all,

which they are not, because initially, like today, there are 0 participants in open primaries, thats why established parties do not notice and do not care.
Open primaries have to be of significance in order to make the effects u propose valid. :-)

 

The rush to the open electoral primaries in order to save the party
candidates is a rush *out* of the parties.  This is the crucial point.
It's inevitable and it happens fast.

yes, but only if the open primaries are of any significance. What you are talking about is the network effect.

Once, the open primaries gain serious traction and accumulate a critical mass of participants, then the network effect will force the established parties to adopt it too to prevent further "rush outs".

But how do you get from 0 to that point?

 

> > The primary network effect started in the late 1800s. ...
>
> ... Why late 1800s?  isnt this an issue we have since the beginning
> of time? or at least throught the whole history of mankind? ...

I mean the network effect in *primary elections*.  Who ought to be
elected?  Who ought to be on the ballot?  The system that answers
these questions for us dates from the late 1800s.  It's the modern
party system.  It's held together by the network effect in its primary
electoral facilities that forces the participants into the largest of
the parties.  Eliminate that network effect by enabling them to range
freely between two primary electoral facilities - no matter how small
- and the entire party system falls to pieces on that ability.

Like if team blue and team red would both agree to use such a open primary toolset and do vote mirroring,

problem would be solved, right?

But unfortunately, its not so much between team blue and team red, but its about the hierarchy within, which should be changed more easily, which is hopefully enabled to open primary tooling, but neither team blue nor team red is seriously interested in using such an approach.

 

Why does it disintegrate so easily?  It's held together by nothing but
a scarcity of valuable information.  A little of that information
surfaces in the creation of the first open primary.  The rest surfaces
in the resulting "gold rush" for information.

yes, its always about information asymmetrie.

 

What information exactly?  The answers to the questions for which the
party system was created in the first place: Who ought to be elected?
Who ought to be on the ballot?  We don't need parties to tell us the
answers to these questions.  We can tell ourselves.

> > ... It's been going strong ever since.  It keeps the Union

> > coalition and the SPD in power in Germany, and other powerful
> > parties around the world.  Maybe the Pirate Party can eventually
> > destroy the SPD and join the duopoly, but that's as far as it can
> > go.  No party *as such* can possibly do what a lone developer
> > armed with two paper parties can do; namely destroy the network
> > effect that keeps that duopoly in power.
>
> ok. i think a developer with two paper parties is a pretty awesome
> thing.  But how do you breath life into it?

I think we talk to AG MFT, as we're doing now.  That's a good start.
The AG wants the Pirates to be on the winning side of history, not the
losing side.  They also want developers and other resources for Disco.
For our part, we need something like Disco to synchronize the open
electoral primaries.  So maybe we can work together, move things
forward, and attract the resources we need to accelerate.

> So what i wanted to say is, that even if u start with one party
> alone and make an awesome tool, which allows anyone to participate,
> this kind of powerful open approach might help those communities who
> adopt that approach to succeed, which in itself will create the
> pressure for other parties to adopt the same approach AND by
> adopting the open primary toolset approach, they will effectively
> crumble the barriers between parties on their own.

Yes, but the community cannot succeed in the dying body of a party
organization.  It must learn to reproduce itself in the healthier
practices of the future.  All the good things you associate with the
party do not actually belong to the party.  They belong to the social
world, and the party won't be in that world (or any) for much longer.

yes.

 

> > http://zelea.com/w/Stuff:Votorola/p/power_structuring
>
> yes, i've already seen this and think its a nice idea.  I'm still
> not sure about its details, and wether or not, voters should be able
> to make binding decisions which candidates go into office and those
> candidates have to arrange themselves with the other candidates
> which have been voted for or else refuse to go into office or if the
> decisions made by ordinary voters should only be a "suggestion"
> where the candidate on top of the hierarchy will decide who goes
> into office.

It's an important point.  Primaries are not for decisions.  They are
for discussion, agreement and mutual understanding prior to decisions.
The eventual decision about the Chancellor is made by the head of
state (the President I think) and subsequently affirmed by the
Bundestag.  This cannot be changed without changing the Basic Law. 

The decisions about the lesser appointments are made by the superior
officials in charge of their offices, beginning with the Chancellor.
So the Chancellor decides who is the Foreign Minister and the Foreign
Minister (I suppose) decides who is the ambassador to the United
Kingdom.  This too cannot be changed without due process.

What *is* changed in these formal decisions is the content.  Formerly
that content was provided by the wealthy and powerful via the medium
of the party system, where now it is provided by the community of
citizens via the medium of the open primaries.  What the citizens
agree to in advance will be respected by decision makers.  First of
all, it will be respected by the citizens themselves on election day.
Having already agreed on the list of candidates (the content) for the
Bundestag, they will then formally elect that list.  Here the electors
are the decision makers.  For the first time in history, they will
have provided the content of their own decision.  This will be in
2017, I suppose, and the party system will be in collapse before then.

By using their electoral power consciously, the citizens will command
the respect of the other decision makers in government.  We can be
sure of this.  The power to turn over whole governments is no small
matter, and European culture (which we all share) has already absorbed
the necessary deference to this.

> Next thing i am unsure of is wether or not it should be possible to
> create a no-confidence vote against any candidate at any given time,
> forcing him out of office and replacing him by someone else.

The Basic Law probably makes no provision for that.  To change the
Basic Law would require a legislative primary and a fairly strong
consensus for that change.  Any consensus that held steady would be
acted on by the Bundestag and other authorities *if at all possible*.
No elected body could defy an electorate that was conscious of its own
power, nor (hopefully) could such a conscious electorate hold to an
unreasonable demand.  (It seems at times that the Athenian democracy
willfully destroyed Greek civilization at its peak.  I hope we don't
repeat their mistakes.)

Mike

Alexander Praetorius said:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > > > 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. ...
> >
> > The parties we need are relatively easy to obtain.  (We're speaking
> > here of Germany, or other states with proportional representation.)
> > We need formal parties empty of all party content.  Call these "open
> > parties".  We want the party name to appear on the ballot on election
> > day, that's all.  These open parties will all share the same leader
> > and candidate list as determined through the open primaries.  On
> > election day, a given elector may vote for any one of the open
> > parties, and the effect will be the same regardless.  It's not really
> > a vote for a party at all, but rather for the candidate list and
> > leader (the would-be Chancellor or Bundeskanzler) that were previously
> > agreed in the open primaries.  Do you see?
> >
>
>
> Yes, that's technically a nice approach. Other parties could join this
> system if they "drop" their candidate lists and instead use the open list,
> right? But although i can see it working technically, i fail to see how
> this will become a reality, because no matter if there are 1, 2 or 10 or
> even more "open parties" on the ballot on election day, nobody would vote
> for them.
>
> In germany, you normally have a dozen or several dozen of electable parties
> on the ballot on election day, but most people will never vote for anything
> else than what they already know.
> The first time the pirates were electable, many people laughed when they
> read the ballot and for the first time in their life learned about the
> pirate party ;-)
> personell had to remind them, that they please be quit and not comment on
> any parties :D
>
>
>
>
> > All we have to build are the open primaries.  We do that using the
> > primary toolsets.  By mirroring the primary votes across all toolsets,
> > we ensure the primaries are truly open; not belonging to any party
> > organization.
> >
>
>
> yes, i understand the technical approach and i like it very much.
> What i still fail to see is how people will start using the tools.
> I have a feeling that they wont. In order to have real users using the
> tools and spreading the word,
> the usability has to be very very good and people should be able to re-use
> knowledge they got from their previously used tools (e.g. wiki, facebook,
> email, mailinglists, forum, twitter, etc...)
> The pirate party is just one of many possible targets with a lot of similar
> users, that means homogenous experience in their current tool usage and
> goals (thats crafting positions for their party program)
>
>
>
> >
> > > ... I am very happy, that the pirates exist. Luckily, the pirates
> > > are a kind of "anti party" :-)
> >
> > Their role is to vanish, I think you said.  But the open parties I
> > just described are already vanished.
> >
>
>
> yes, they are a technical "hack" right from the beginning in order to
> inject the open primaries into the current system.
> Thats a good thing, but still, its necessary to gather users which use the
> open primaries and spread the word about which "technical vehicles" to
> elect on election day.
> This whole thing can only take off the ground, if there is a MOVEMENT
> behind it, thus a lot of users with similar motivation which makes them use
> open primaries to change the world for the better.
>
> What kind of people are these people? Probably young people, which are
> younger than 30. Those which are older than 30 might be a minority compared
> to the mainstream behavior of their age and are not likely to create a
> critical mass.
>
> In lack of alternatives, young people around the world join the pirate
> movement. They identify as pirates, because it serves their purpose. They
> were NOT BORN as pirates nor will they necessarily be pirates till the end
> of time.
> They just use the pirate party, because there is no alternative TINA!
>
> There might be other people as well, which are not pirates, but still very
> "open source mindend", maybe mostly software developers from all walks of
> life, and other geeks... BUT i think many of them dont use (or waste) their
> times in discussing political issues.
> It's the pirates who do this. If the pirates use the plattform, they can
> kickstart the open primary system as a whole.
>
> What other strategy do you have in mind?
> Just gathering a handful of people and somehow manage to put "technical
> vehicles" on the ballot on election day will not convert huge masses of
> people to vote for these. Most of them will not even have heard about the
> approach and they wont care.
> The pirates are popular and even before their first election day in which
> they participated, they had several thousand members, rapidly growing
> across the whole of europe. But the majority had never heard of pirates on
> election day.
> EVEN TODAY, there are STILL many people who have NEVER HEARD of the pirate
> party, and if they have, they dont have a fuckin clue what the pirate party
> is all about.
>
> :-)
> So in order to take off ground it needs real people and a fuckin lot of
> them. i currently dont see how this will be possible if you do not target
> existing communities.
> The pirates dont have to be the only targeted community and will never
> remain the only community, but i think its the only chance to make this all
> take off ground, at least in europe.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > > 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!
> >
> > Toolset user interfaces (UIs) are expensive.  Before coding them, we
> > need to be certain of the design, which means being certain of the
> > practice that's to be supported by the tools.
>
>
> yes.
> ...and no ;-)
> Its true, good user interface design is an engineering discipline of its
> own and an art in itself.
> but as in backend coding, its possible to re-use components.
> what do you need? maybe search boxes with autocompletion.
> maybe text editor field with syntax highlighting and several different
> kinds of features
> maybe diff visualization between drafts
> lots of other things.
> it should work on desktop and on mobile too. mobile is even more important,
> because mobile is "the next big thing".
> you could even say its the "current big thing" already.
>
> So whatever components work, they stay, what doesnt work, will be thrown
> away.
> you learn about the GUI and its usage while people play around with it an
> give feedback.
> it can never be thought through and then be coded, it has to evolve with
> its users and their importance weighting of GUI elements through actual
> usage.
>
> If you want to offer complex functionality on a mobile phone, you really
> have to put a lot of thought into UI details, because otherwise it will be
> unusable.
>
>
>
> > No practice for
> > e-democracy has yet been fully developed.  (Maybe Votorola is the
> > closest, but it's not good enough.)  That's why you don't see
> > production toolsets yet.
> >
>
>
> so let's create a "demo toolset" for votorola. One which is tailored for
> the needs of an existing community.
> might be the pirates, but might also be a different community.
> learn about the current tooling they use in order to do work and try to
> social engineer votorola based tools into their workflow.
> To be able to do so, the tools have to technically (UI usability) make use
> of the existing habits of the communities, so they should try to mimic the
> behavior of current tooling as closely as possible.
> Once the communitiy has switchted, the UI and tooling can grow with its
> users, but first it has to pick up people where they are.
>
>
>
> >
> > > > > ... 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 [from the Pirate Party]
> > > to force others tools into that kind of thinking.  ...
> >
> > ;^) The pressure's too much for Votorola.  We surrender!
> >
>
>
> no. maybe i were not able to say what i meant.
> In order for other people and communities (like mainstream political
> parties) to use votorola based tools,
> one or several communities have to use votorola based tools first.
> Because if they do, they offer a viable alternative to average citizens for
> participation.
> Thus, all those who are not happy with mainstream parties can engage in
> open primaries and in order to make those "open primary results" COUNT,
> committed parties like the pirates will make them popular by discussing
> them in parliament and in the media.
> This open approach might then attract more people engaging in those open
> primaries, creating EVEN MORE incentive to vote for the pirates in order to
> push the results of those open primaries through "congress" or through the
> law making process.
>
> People who participate in the "open primaries" will only vote for the
> pirate party if they like the results of the open primaries. That alone
> create a lot of incentive to discuss things and reach consensus.
> In this phase, pirates and other "open primary parties" (like those u
> proposed purely as a technical hack) will be voted for and established
> parties might constantly loose voters, because they will learn and
> experience that open primaries might create better solutions and are
> actually a viable alternative (elected pirates might grow confidence that
> it will be possible)
>
> So .... THEN ... if this all works... will the current mainstream parties
> be put UNDER PRESSURE to adopt "open primaries" too and as a consequence
> will parties as such start to vanish completely.
>
> Thats what i wanted to say. pirates and others, using open primary toolsets
> and making its results pop up in mainstream media and
> congress/parliament/etc... will motivate more people to participate and
> eventually create pressure for established parties to adopt open primaries
> too if they dont want to sink into insignificance.
>
>
>
>
> > > > 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. ...  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? ...
> >
> > An open executive primary, for one.  German citizens may start
> > reaching consensus on Chancellor (Bundeskanzler), Foreign Minister
> > (Bundesminister des Auswärtigen) and thousands of other direct and
> > indirect appointments of the Chancellor's office.  That's never
> > happened before.  It cannot happen until we eliminate the network
> > effect between two primary toolsets, and invite others to join.
> >
>
> yes.
> maybe i try to use an analogy
> I see votorola as a decentralised "open primary toolset" app store.
> Anyone who wants could strengthen this decentralised appstore by hosting an
> instance.
> The source of the app store is MIT licenced or something similar.
>
> Now what i would like to see is a real open primary toolset tailored to a
> real communities needs.
> (that might be the pirates). This toolset should adhere to all the openness
> or standards or whatever it is that makes votorola votorola.
> So it will be a helpful thing to the pirates. it might grow with the
> pirates. it will be a proof of concept, that toolset written in a way so
> that they are votorola compatible can actually WORK.
> This might encourage other developers to "jump on the train" and to engage
> in vote mirroring and everything else which is needed.
>
> Maybe the pirates should indeed not be the only communitie which should be
> targeted right from the beginning, because it might be a strategically
> critical thing to have a real proof of concept... i should say "proof of
> practice" for vote mirroring too.
>
> maybe there is a community in canada? maybe one could try to target the
> occupy movement (when it comes to occupy, making everything possible on
> mobile phones is a "mission critical" thing, because thats how occupy uses
> the web).
> what about the "tea party"? :-) i dont know. maybe grillo beppos party in
> italy? who knows ;-)
>
>
>
> >
> > > ... 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.
> >
> > Yes, I think that's how it will go.
> >
>
> ok cool.
>
>
> >
> > > 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?  ...
> >
> > As mentioned, they need not be real parties.  Two paper parties with
> > no members are sufficient.  There must be two primary toolsets behind
> > them, of course, but that's not much of a barrier.
>
>
> So what u want is to code two "open primary toolsets" for two open parties
> (technical vehicles in a legal system) which then can do vote mirroring.
> ...awesome, but...
> it doesnt cater to real people. people might then be free to choose between
> toolset 1 and open party 1 or toolset 2 and open party 2, in fact, they
> only have to choose between open toolset 1 and open toolset 2 and can vote
> for whichever open party they want.
> ...but will they ever start using it?
> It sounds pretty lifeless. People have hopes and issues and friends and
> social networks and events around their activities as a citizen.
> They talk to each other, they use email, maybe facebook, maybe twitter,
> maybe word/pdf and send it to each other, maybe a wiki maybe an etherpad,
> maybe a forum, maybe blogs, maybe skype/IRC/mumble, maybe survey tools and
> maybe a mashup of all of this exchanging hyperlinks and doing a lot of
> stuff manually.
>
> People are used to it, they know each other, they have their digital habits.
> Now WHO is those people who start to use open primary toolset 1 or open
> primary toolset 2 ?
> Maybe a few beta users, but all those who are really commited to activism
> and political activity have their social environment and are already active
> somewhere. They do not start from scratch.
>
> i fail to see how u think users will start to use these tools and grow...
>
> I believe, in order to enable this, one has to custom tailor to existing
> communities.
> Those existing communities might found parties themselves or have already
> founded political parties.
> Using the custom tailored open primary tool, will tear down technical
> barriers between all communities which use open primary tooling and that,
> over time, will automatically make them "join forces", because discussion
> will create consensus between those parties.
>
>
>
>
> > A single developer
> > can code the vote translations for both toolsets if necessary.
> >
>
> Think its the WRONG approach.
> Because the translation might change often as tools evolve and users or
> communities change their minds.
> This kind of translation itself has to be made by the community and the UI
> should support this.
>
> At least it should be possible to create "open primary tooling" that
> enables communities to do it themselves instead of let a developer do it.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > > True, [the open parties] 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.
> >
> > The primary network effect started in the late 1800s.
>
>
>
> Really? i think the network effect in itself is something u see throughout
> nature.
> Something reaches/grows into critical mass and changes things very
> fundamentally.
> Why late 1800s?
> isnt this an issue we have since the beginning of time? or at least
> throught the whole history of mankind?
> the monetary system or the monetary systems, they all took of because of
> network effects.
> When the dinasours walked the earth, aristocracy might not have existed,
> but it started somehow and needed to reach
> a critical mass, so that enough people knew about aristocracy and
> aristocracy accepted each other and nursed their relationships to each
> other, so it wasnt possible to non-aristocrats to establish a different
> form of aristocracy, because of the network effect.
>
> same for currency.
> new technologies enable to break network effects. bitcoin can tackle
> traditional money which is backed by the legal system.
> the internet might tackle the media system.
>
>
>
> > It's been going
> > strong ever since.  It keeps the Union coalition and the SPD in power
> > in Germany, and other powerful parties around the world.  Maybe the
> > Pirate Party can eventually destroy the SPD and join the duopoly, but
> > that's as far as it can go.  No party *as such* can possibly do what a
> > lone developer armed with two paper parties can do; namely destroy the
> > network effect that keeps that duopoly in power.
> >
>
>
> ok. i think a developer with two paper parties is a pretty awesome thing.
> But how do you breath life into it?
>
>
>
> >
> > > ...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...
> >
> > No, I think we're already there.  The parties are the Union coalition,
> > the SPD and (let's say) the Pirates.  All three run closed primaries,
> > like any other party.  The situation is already ripe for change.
> >
>
>
> yes, its ripe for a change.
> i wasnt talking about that, its probably because my english sucks? ;-)
> I was trying to illuminate the path that will happen.
>
> The thought was, ...if the pirates use the "votorola based" open primary
> tooling and will be successful, other parties will analyze their success
> and will try to imitate it, thus, they will or have to use an "open primary
> tooling" too.
> Thats the moment where they can start to compete for voters, because party
> members can directly join the discussion and crafting and consensus finding
> of/for issues engaged with members of different parties.
> They can come up with solutions and these will be backed by members from
> all kinds of opem primary toolset parties
>
> So what i wanted to say is, that even if u start with one party alone and
> make an awesome tool, which allows anyone to participate, this kind of
> powerful open approach might help those communities who adopt that approach
> to succeed, which in itself will create the pressure for other parties to
> adopt the same approach AND by adopting the open primary toolset approach,
> they will effectively crumble the barriers between parties on their own.
>
>
>
> >
> > > > 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 :-)
> >
> > It's the open executive primary:
> > http://zelea.com/w/Stuff:Votorola/p/power_structuring
>
>
>
> yes, i've already seen this and think its a nice idea.
> I'm still not sure about its details, and wether or not, voters should be
> able to make binding decisions which candidates go into office and those
> candidates have to arrange themselves with the other candidates which have
> been voted for or else refuse to go into office or if the decisions made by
> ordinary voters should only be a "suggestion" where the candidate on top of
> the hierarchy will decide who goes into office.
> Next thing i am unsure of is wether or not it should be possible to create
> a no-confidence vote against any candidate at any given time, forcing him
> out of office and replacing him by someone else.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > > > 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??? :-)
> >
> > Except I'm describing a much faster mechanism, I think.
> >
>
> Maybe it should be combined.
> Its cheap to create votorla based open primary toolsets with vote mirroring
> established and two corresponding paper parties.
> But beside that, there should also be an approach to custom tailor votorola
> based open primary toolsets to established communities (e.g. pirates) in
> order to get traction.
> But in order to do so, developers who do this have to know HOW to write an
> "open primary toolset" in a way so that its compatible with the votorola
> approach.
>
> I think the paper party approach is good, because it enables to create a
> clean reference, a proof of concept approach to experiment with, without
> messing up someones daily workflow.
> But i think in order for people to join this movement, it has to be
> combined with the other appraoch, which is tailoring votorola based open
> primary toolsets to an existing communities needs.
> They might initially not use the "vote mirroring feature", but at least
> they now use tooling which is able to support it in principle.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > > The party system as a whole is not seriously shaken until the
> > > > primary toolsets start to gain users.
> > >
> > > how will it start? :-)
> >
> > Suppose it starts in Anglo-America.  It's easier there, because no
> > open parties are required.  Here's how:
> >
> >   1. Eliminate the network effect between two primary electoral
> >      toolsets, e.g. by vote mirroring.
> >
> >   2. Announce the world's first open executive primary, together with
> >      an open assembly primary for legislative seats.
> >
> >   3. Improve the toolsets to the point where developers can operate
> >      them.  Only developers are needed at first.
> >
> >   4. Resources start coming in.  A trickle at first, then a flood.
> >      Everyone wants to be a part of history in the making.
> >
> > It's a little more difficult in places that use proportional
> > representation like Germany, because we need those open pseudo-parties
> > along with the toolsets.  So there's added paperwork and expense that
> > isn't needed in the US, Britain, Canada, etc (maybe France too, but
> > I'm less certain.)  Still, that's no major obstacle.
> >
>
> ok, so if parties are not needed in the US, then thats a better starting
> point.
> In germany you need them and thats why i imagine the pirates as a formal
> hack into the legal system to enable people injecting that whichever they
> craft by consensual discussion into the law making process.
>
> For germany i somehow fail to see how such a system would ever be able to
> get off the ground without the pirates or another established or near
> established party doing the pionieering work.
>
>
>
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > Votorola is always open to developers (and others), but currently we
> > don't have the resources to supervise less experienced developers.
> > They have to be self starters.
> >
>
> Wouldnt it be a good idea to somehow craft a very clear interface for
> votorola which enables arbitrary people who are interested, to develop a
> "open primary toolset" or change their already existing toolset into
> something that adheres to the votorola way?
>
> for example
> i could start my own tool and right from the beginning i could take care
> that it will be compatible with the votorola approach.
> How do i do that? Right now i have no clue.
> Where is the API?
> Or where is the standardized formats?
> How can i make sure that whatever i want to code is coded in a way that
> will ensure its compatible with votorola?
> (i dont have to learn about all the stuff votorola does if i stick to the
> interface)
>
> isnt it possible to do this? shouldnt it have a high priority, so people
> who are commited can start to work even when they know that votorola is not
> yet ready for prime time.
>
>
>
> >
> > > 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 :-)
> >
> > Yes, I think so.  The easiest and most exciting start-up is via the
> > electoral primaries (1-4 above), especially the executive one.
> > Votorola can't easily start that alone.  We need to cooperate with at
> > least one other primary toolset.
> >
>
> so it should be very high priority to somehow create documentation or other
> forms of explanation how a developer can develop in a way that it will be a
> valid "votorola based open primary toolset".
>
>
>
> >
> > Otherwise, we do the normative start-up (legislative bills, and that
> > kind of thing).  They're more difficult because the practice is more
> > complicated and needs elaborate trials.
>
>
>
> personally, i am only interested in this kind of approach, because i think,
> once this approach has taken off the ground, everything else is irrelevant
> and will be socially forced into sticking to what this approach comes up
> with. The people will work and find their ways to have their will be
> executed one way or another.
>
>
>
>
> > It's those trials that will
> > eventually pull in the resources, once we get into full swing.
> >
>
> what would people motivate to participate in the first place?
> it would be effort for people to participate, but the results will not be
> something real, right?
>

> --
>
> 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
> ***********************************************
----
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 

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