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

[Stephen Coffman <sungaia3.14 AT gmail.com>]

Here's an interesting article on *Net Parties*.
http://www.realitysandwich.com/how_net_parties_are_changing_rules_political_game



On Apr 19, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Michael Allan wrote:

> Maybe this should be published.  If the party system isn't about to
> fall apart - if the argument can be refuted or undermined - then we
> want to know that in advance.  An academic paper plus a Web teaser
> would probably force the issue one way or another; either prove us
> wrong on paper, or give us the resources to run the experiment.
> 
> 
> Alexander Praetorius said:
>>> 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?
> 
> By "elector", I mean someone who is eligible to vote on election day.
> So most citizens of age are already electors.
> 
>>> 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).  (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. ...
> 
> You missed point (c), Alex.  The open candidate list is largely
> elected to the Bundestag even if nobody votes for an open party on
> election day.  The votes could all go to the Union, SPD, etc. as
> usual, and *still* the open list would be largely elected.  In that
> sense, the open parties always win.  They are unbeatable.  That's food
> for thought if it's true, and it's also newsworthy.
> 
>>> 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.  ...
> 
> Not for the government as whole, you can't.  The Pirate Party's
> candidate list is not the assured membership of the entire Bundestag;
> nor is the Pirate's leader the assured Chancellor; nor are any of the
> other primary nominees of the party assured of appointment in the
> government.  These assurances can be provided only by open electoral
> primaries, and the Pirate Party is not hosting any (d).
> 
>>> 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)
> 
> Yes, maybe a community can help in bringing two toolsets together.
> This has been my hope for AG MFT and other Pirates.  It's worth a try.
> 
>>> 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. ...
> 
> If the primary votes of outsiders were counted equal to the member's
> votes *and* could be cast on facilities beyond the control of the
> Pirate Party (or any other organization), then that would be an open
> *program* primary.  It would enable the German citizens to craft
> consensus programs for the government as a whole.  Further, if it were
> backed by open *electoral* primaries, then the consensus programs
> would be assured of implementation.  But none of this is the case.
> The Pirate Party does not (at least not yet) enable any of this.
> 
>>> ... 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. ...
> 
> It wouldn't help them to do so.  As noted previously (quoted below),
> Union members will feel compelled to join in the open electoral
> primaries *regardless* of what the Union does.  Open primaries are
> necessarily beyond Union control.  So it no longer matters what kind
> of tooling a party organization supports (or does not support); the
> action occurs outside of the party organizations.  All of it.
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> We cannot have participants today, because we have no open primary for
> them to participate in.  To have an open primary, we must eliminate
> the primary network effect between at least two primary toolsets.
> 
>>> 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".
> 
> Technically it is not a network effect.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
> 
> No, I think the main attraction of an open electoral primary is that
> it provides reliable information about the upcoming election (who
> ought we to elect?) that is unavailable from any other source.  So
> there's an outrush of members and other loyal supporters seeking that
> information outside the parties and contributing to it.  The parties
> cannot do anything to prevent this, neither by action nor inaction.
> 
> The "life blood" will flow out of the parties, because all the value
> is in the mixing of it.
> 
>>>> ... 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? ...
> 
> No, I don't think that's the trigger.  Organized teams (parties) have
> no enabling role.  Participation is an individual decision.  Crucially
> the parties cannot prevent their own candidates from appearing in the
> open primary and extending the choices, nor prevent their own members
> from discussing and voting on those choices.  Whatever the parties do
> - or fail to do - is pretty much without relevance.  The future is in
> the hands of members and non-members who act outside of all party
> control.  That is why the parties are finished.
> 
> The open primary is anchored in the unorganized part of society known
> as the lifeworld.  It is (or will be) an institution of the lifeworld
> as opposed to the administrative system (the other aspect of society).
> At no point does the open primary depend on any particular
> organization.  It is always free (born free), and it confers freedom
> on those who use it.
> 
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> Votorola mailing list
> Votorola AT zelea.com
> http://mail.zelea.com/mailman/listinfo/votorola