[EM] Public parties: a Trojan Horse in the party system

[Michael Allan]

Paul and Ed,

Paul Nollen said:
> I tried to start here in Belgium but choose to join the Pirate Party
> Belgium who is very close to what we try to accomplish. ...  It
> would be very interesting to join forces if possible. ...

But my understanding of E2D (correct me if I'm wrong) is that it lacks
these essential "ingredients of success":
http://metagovernment.org/wiki/User:Michael_Allan/Public_parties#Substance

  * Never controls the nominees, candidates or elect
  * Never holds power
  * Voting is free of restrictions, as in free speech
  * Everyone is invited to participate

The argument of success hinges on these, particularly on the last two
in the context of primary elections, where the party decides who gets
on the ballot or party list.  Is there an E2D party that attempts to
lift all restrictions on primary electoral voting (time, place,
method) and voter eligibility?

A *public* party must lift all such restrictions, of course.  Its
voters are the public who (by def'n) are not regulated or restricted.


Ed Pastore said:
> I was considering tackling this process as an unofficial party,
> where there is a national organizing unit, but no official presence
> in the states. Instead, individuals run as individuals. I think that
> is consistent with your proposal, since you "force" individuals
> representing the other political parties to run in this party's
> primary, right?

Yes, technically it might be the same.  But it couldn't be explained
in the same way (party guaranteed to win, but party is hollow, empty
window onto public) if that matters.

> However, I do want to draw your attention to somewhat of a
> real-world criticism of this idea. The state of California radically
> changed its primary process for this year's primary. It opened its
> primaries so that all candidates ran against each other in the
> primary (sort of making a round 1 election, and turning the official
> election into a runoff). However, according to critics, the end
> result was basically the same as before: the big political parties
> dominated the process and ran it the same way as always:
> http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/07/4549066/open-primary-business-as-usual.html

Interesting!  Here's a short memo explaining the new rules:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2012-elections/june-primary/pdf/new-open-primary-info.pdf

> I understand your proposal is substantially different. I'm just
> pointing out that there is a *lot* of inertia in the U.S. political
> system.

Like you say, they turned the primary into a stage 1 election.  In our
case, we'd turn it into a free process of consensus building.  (Also
we'd do it in a "party" in a way that's easy to explain and copy.)

> P.S. What software would be up to the task of managing your proposed
> party?

Any software with mirroring tacked on should work.  Add a parallel
party (or shell) running Votorola, and we could test the mirroring
network.  Basically we need software *other* than Votorola that we
could wire up.

I think the only serious hurdles are labour and money.  Could we gain
traction with the argument of inevitable success, do you think?  We'd
need to present it in different formats and degrees of sophistication,
of course.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/


Paul Nollen said:
> Hi Alan,
> 
> Per Norback of Demoex (democratic experiment) in Norway started something 
> like your proposal ten years ago and is still active. Several parties all 
> over the world are trying to follow his example.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoex
> http://www.e2d-i.net/
> http://participedia.net/organizations/demoex
> 
> I tried to start here in Belgium but choose to join the Pirate Party Belgium 
> who is very close to what we try to accomplish.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party
> 
> It would be very interesting to join forces if possible. In Germany the 
> first "landkreis" is using liquid feedback  in order to give the citizens 
> the possibility to have a say (not decisive yet) in the decisionmaking 
> proces.
> http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/landkreis-friesland-fuehrt-liquid-feedback-ein-a-843873.html
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Paul


Ed Pastore said:
> I had been thinking of trying an initiative like this in the U.S. (after our November elections, since it is too late to start now anyway and since the day after yet-another-disappointing-election would be a good day to launch the process).
> 
> In some states in the U.S., establishing a formal party is an extremely difficult task. The current parties have entrenched themselves so well that they have raised enormous barriers to the establishment of competing parties.
> 
> I was considering tackling this process as an unofficial party, where there is a national organizing unit, but no official presence in the states. Instead, individuals run as individuals. I think that is consistent with your proposal, since you "force" individuals representing the other political parties to run in this party's primary, right?
> 
> However, I do want to draw your attention to somewhat of a real-world criticism of this idea. The state of California radically changed its primary process for this year's primary. It opened its primaries so that all candidates ran against each other in the primary (sort of making a round 1 election, and turning the official election into a runoff). However, according to critics, the end result was basically the same as before: the big political parties dominated the process and ran it the same way as always:
> http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/07/4549066/open-primary-business-as-usual.html
> 
> I understand your proposal is substantially different. I'm just pointing out that there is a *lot* of inertia in the U.S. political system.
> 
> P.S. What software would be up to the task of managing your proposed party?