[EM] Helping the Pirate Party to vanish

[Michael Allan]

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.  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.
But the actual toolset doesn't matter so much.  What matters is that
we enable the individual users (members) to range freely across
toolsets/parties and settle where they prefer.

> ... 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.  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. ;^)

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

> ... 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.  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.  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.)

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.
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.  Those
users are not going to turn around and vote for a conventional party
on election day.  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.  The party system
as a whole is not seriously shaken until the primary toolsets start to
gain users.  The timing depends, therefore, on how many developers we
can attract to push the toolsets into beta.  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.

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

> 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/


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.

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