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

[Michael Allan]

Paul and Fred,

Paul Nollen said:
> ... [Demoex] uses the Internet to make it possible for any member to
> participate in the local government. Demoex has a representative in
> the municipal council, who votes in the council according to a poll
> that is held beforehand on the website of the party. ... Every
> Vallentuna resident older than 16 years can register on the website
> to vote; anyone in the world can take part in the debates, if they
> can write in Swedish.

You probably have better information on Demoex than I have, but the
Swedish site says voting is restricted to members.  "We make it
possible to be active in the local governments debates for anyone, but
only members have the rights to vote and thereby influence our seat."
[1]  I guess that would make it unlike a public party, because a
public party places no restrictions on voters, and no controls on
elected officials [2].

The UK site agrees more with your description.  It proposes "electing
representatives who pledge to vote however the public tells them to
vote" [3].  Again this would be unlike a public party, because it
systematically controls an elected official.  In this regard, it would
be more like the Norwegian joke party mentioned by Kristofer [4].

Note that there is no public discussion on the UK site [5].  Also the
Swedish site is monetized with ads [6].


Fred Gohlke said:
> It is not entirely clear how a group can have the form of a party
> without the substance.  To the extent that people organize, they
> cannot escape Robert Michels' dictum: "It is indisputable that the
> oligarchical and bureaucratic tendency of party organization is a
> matter of technical and practical necessity.  It is the inevitable
> product of the very principle of organization".

I claim that public parties have public stuff in them and no political
stuff.  You suggest they may nevertheless have an "oligarchical and
bureaucratic tendency" to behave like political parties.  Can you
point to a particular way or instance in which they might behave as
political parties?  I think it is impossible.

> This may be a semantic problem; perhaps some word other than 'party'
> would better fit the case (public body?).  ...

I chose the word "party" for ease of explanation.  People already know
about parties.  They already understand that parties have control of
the electoral system, and therewith state power.  With this background
knowledge, they can easily understand an explanation such as:

  A public party is a party that always wins.  Unlike a political
  party, it is an empty window onto the general public.

> The "argument of inevitable success" may be a bit optimistic.  Like
> all political ideas, this one bears the burden of persuading a large
> portion of the population to adopt the method.  Perhaps some form of
> telephone application could go viral.  That might gain adherents
> quickly but might also turn into a passing fad.

You refer to the premise on which the argument rests:

  The public party strives to increase its primary turnout by all
  means. This includes mirroring the votes of would-be competitors
  (other public parties) such that turnout is effectively pooled among
  them. By focusing their efforts on this goal, while steering clear
  of anything that might offend a potential elector, the public
  parties are likely to succeed in building a primary turnout that at
  least rivals that of the political parties, encumbered as they are
  by inconvenient voting restrictions, disgruntled members and a
  disillusioned population... [2]

Given this, success becomes inevitable.  The public party will come to
win all elections.  This is the argument.  But if the argument is
correct *and* is explained to the right people, then the premise on
which it rests can be manufactured or otherwise made a fact.

> There are two worrying aspects about the proposal.  One is the lack
> of a way for the people to carefully examine candidates to determine
> their ability and integrity.  The other is that the concept may be
> susceptible to media-induced frenzies.

The proposal allows people to personally choose their own methods of
examining candidates and making decisions.  There are no restrictions.
Some may choose to rely on media-induced frenzies, while others devise
their own methods and make them generally available, while others
still choose from what is available.

But this is hardly a proposal.  In a society that respects freedom of
expression, no decision method can be enforced *anyway* prior to
elections, and no restrictions can be enforced.  This is just a fact.
All I propose is to recognize the fact and work accordingly.

> One thought that struck me while studying the proposal was the 
> similarity to Michael Moore's We Want You (www.wewantyou.us).  If a 
> combination of that effort and your ideas is possible, it might be 
> beneficial.

That looks like an open primary.  Ed pointed to something similar in
California, though on a larger scale.  Both differ from a public party
in the lack of party form and the placement of technical restrictions
on the voters.  These differences make the process more like a "round
1 election", as Ed says.

The restriction on the voters is especially indicative, because it
means that the voters cannot be the public.  As we know, the public
can never be restricted in their expressions.


 [1] http://demoex.net/en
 [2] http://metagovernment.org/wiki/User:Michael_Allan/Public_parties
 [3] http://www.facebook.com/DemoexUK/info
 [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Political_Party_%28Norway%29
 [5] http://www.facebook.com/DemoexUK
     https://twitter.com/DemoexUK
 [6] http://demoex.net/
 [7] http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/2012-July/004886.html

-- 
Michael Allan

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


Paul Nollen said:
> Sorry, demoex is active in Sweden (Stockholm) ;-)
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
> 
> Demoex, an appellation short for democracy experiment, is a local Swedish 
> political party and an experiment with direct democracy in Vallentuna, a 
> suburb of Stockholm, Sweden.[1] It uses the Internet to make it possible for 
> any member to participate in the local government. Demoex has a 
> representative in the municipal council, who votes in the council according 
> to a poll that is held beforehand on the website of the party. This is 
> unlike traditional representatives, who vote according to their own views or 
> their party's views. Every Vallentuna resident older than 16 years can 
> register on the website to vote; anyone in the world can take part in the 
> debates, if they can write in Swedish. Voters do not have to vote on all 
> issues; the fewer votes on an issue, the more weight each vote carries. To 
> boost participation, the party allows users to choose someone to advise them 
> on a particular topic.
> 
> Demoex started 10 years ago.
> 
> Paul


Fred Gohlke said:
> Good Afternoon, Michael
> 
> I'm working my way through your proposal.
> 
> It is not entirely clear how a group can have the form of a party 
> without the substance.  To the extent that people organize, they cannot 
> escape Robert Michels' dictum:  "It is indisputable that the 
> oligarchical and bureaucratic tendency of party organization is a matter 
> of technical and practical necessity.  It is the inevitable product of 
> the very principle of organization".
> 
> This may be a semantic problem; perhaps some word other than 'party' 
> would better fit the case (public body?).  In any event, acquiring "the 
> labour, money and other resources needed to make it happen" is non-trivial.
> 
> The "argument of inevitable success" may be a bit optimistic.  Like all 
> political ideas, this one bears the burden of persuading a large portion 
> of the population to adopt the method.  Perhaps some form of telephone 
> application could go viral.  That might gain adherents quickly but might 
> also turn into a passing fad.
> 
> There are two worrying aspects about the proposal.  One is the lack of a 
> way for the people to carefully examine candidates to determine their 
> ability and integrity.  The other is that the concept may be susceptible 
> to media-induced frenzies.
> 
> One thought that struck me while studying the proposal was the 
> similarity to Michael Moore's We Want You (www.wewantyou.us).  If a 
> combination of that effort and your ideas is possible, it might be 
> beneficial.
> 
> Fred