[EM] Helping the Pirate Party to vanish

[Alexander Praetorius]

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?




> Both types of open primary (electoral and normative) are required, but
> the initial kick will probably come from one or the other, as you say.
>
> > What is the network effect? :-)
> > A network effect will only exist if there is an inside and an
> > outside.  If all are within and structures are as everyone wishes
> > they were, there will be no network effect.
> > A network effect can be seen at least from two perspectives.
> > ...1. it sucks aways everything into something that i am not part of
> > ...2. it brings everything into ONE and i am part of and therefor
> > things are no longer devided.
> >
> > ... So the best possible thing one could possibly achive is to move
> > forward but stay OPEN, so that others can join in.  This way, you
> > use all your strength to create a network effect (and so will
> > others).
> >
> > ... The difference is, if YOU succeed, then all others can join you
> > and will not loose their investments or at least only their selfish
> > investments.  This might also be exactly WHY you win and can create
> > the network effect, because you follow a vision that encompasses
> > everyones best interest and not only your own best interest.
>
> I won't answer here yet, because you didn't fully understand what I
> propose.  It's something more immediate, as I explained above.
>
> Mike
>
>
> Alexander Praetorius said:
> > On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> > I am very happy, that the pirates exist. Luckily, the pirates are a kind
> of
> > "anti party" :-)
> > Its a worldwide movement. If u ask people in any country if they know
> this
> > or that political party,
> > they probably will only have heard about it, if its a party which is
> active
> > in their own country,
> > or if its "republicans" or "democrats", because everyone knows the major
> > parties of the USA.
> > ..or ... its the pirate party :-)
> > ...that says SOMETHING.
> > The pirates are the political aspect of the open source movement.
> > The pirate party was born online and its motor is the "spirit of the web"
> > ...metaphorically spoken :P
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> >
> > YES and NO.
> > In order to work, pieces must fit together.
> > And there is at least ONE major gap, an thats the coupling device :-)
> > Human-Computer-Interface must neatly fit together and currently it's far
> > from that point.
> >
> > what i see in votorola is two fold:
> > 1. it's a lovely vision
> > 2. it's a "proof of concept".
> >
> > but it's NOT a product ...yet.
> > There's many aspects to a real product.
> > The reason why linux did never succeed in becoming mainstream is, that
> its
> > not a product.
> > (and products dont have to cost money!)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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!
> > Sure, there is adhocracy, there is liquid feedback, there is vilfredo,
> > there is onethousandandone toolsets,
> > but they all SUCK!
> > They can do what they can and are somehow interesting and proof of
> concept,
> > ... but there is a reason,
> > why people in reality use EMAIL LISTS and WIKIS and eventually ETHERPADS
> > and MUMBLE and the like.
> > There is a reason, why you are NOT ABLE to use Votorola and some kind of
> > voting/delegation mechanism
> > to replace the job offers or "wants" you currently search for the
> votorola
> > project.
> >
> > Votorola is great and there is a reason why i'm sticking to all this,
> > because i believe in the vision.
> > But all it currently does is stealing peoples time. Its not usable and
> its
> > the same with all the other tools out there.
> > They are impractical and currently only of "scientific use".
> > If you want to know what is needed, look at how mainstream people
> currently
> > actually REALLY solve their problems.
> > It's email
> > It's wikis
> > It's telephon/skype/mumble
> > It's linkedIn/facebook&co.
> > It's twitter
> > It's google calendar and the like
> > ....
> >
> > There are so many tools, which all solve "one aspect" of what people
> need.
> >
> > And because people use a huge variety of devices (mobile, desktop)
> > (windows, linux, android, mac osx, ...)
> > and they have to work together... html5 as technology in itself is, in my
> > opinion, the only way-to-go.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > What matters is that
> > > we enable the individual users (members) to range freely across
> > > toolsets/parties and settle where they prefer.
> > >
> >
> >
> > YES, BUT :-)
> > in order for tools to open up...
> > in order for tools to be used by people AT ALL...
> > there have to be AWESOME TOOLS, but i cant see those.
> > And with "awesome", i dont refer to functionality, but to user experience
> > and ease of use and stuff like that.
> > This is not about bling and bells and whistles, but its about looking at
> > peoples problems.
> > Whats their problems and how do they currently solve those.
> >
> > Thats the "place" where you have to pick them up.
> >
> > I dont know if the USA currently has a playground where people could be
> > easily picked up to use such tools which currently do not exist yet,
> > but in germany and some other countries, that playground is the pirate
> > party.
> >
> > There are so many working groups in the pirate party and some of them
> with
> > hundreds of members and active people.
> > But you could also start with metagovernment itself.
> > what do we use? MAILINGLIST + WIKI
> >
> > Can people like content or vote for content on-the-fly when it comes up
> on
> > the mailinglist? NO
> > Does stuff which is said in skype or mumble find its way into the wiki
> > automatically? NO
> > Is it easy to create an ISSUE (like development of software) and let
> people
> > spent ressources on it? NO
> > (at least u did not succeed with the "wants" or job offers which you have
> > posted)
> >
> > So the tools doesnt even work for ourselves, how is it supposed to work
> for
> > others???
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > ... 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 to force others tools into that kind of thinking.
> > This pressure can be build, if there is at least ONE AWESOME TOOLSET,
> > which is actually USED IN PRACTICE, by A LOT OF PEOPLE (e.g. the pirates)
> > to successfully solve REAL ISSUES :-)
> > BECAUSE: This will use the network effect to build up pressure to force
> all
> > the other tools
> > into abandoning the network effect alltogether :-)
> >
> > So whats important is, that whichever awesome tool leads, it must stay
> open
> > all the time.
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > The question is not so much about two parties using the system and once
> the
> > avalanche
> > has been started, it can never be stopped (thats trivial), its more about
> > how to get
> > two parties to use it or at least one and later maybe a second party.
> >
> > >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? what
> > problems can be solved TODAY with toolsets or votorla?
> > I say NONE, and thats the problem.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Sooner or later the network effect might kick in, but thats not a
> problem,
> > because metagovernment and its member projects are committed
> > to stay open and will never exploit the network effect, instead there
> will
> > be a helpful attitude towards everyone who wants to join.
> >
> >
> >
> > > If the Pirates cannot stomach this (it's a bitter pill to swallow),
> > > then we might create two new parties expressly for this purpose.
> > >
> >
> > A person only has a limited lifespan. Lets be generous and let that be
> 100
> > years.
> > How long will it take to create two new parties and create that traction
> > which pirates currently build up?
> > Is there other people out there who are so ambitious to found a new
> party?
> > ...if so, why do only the pirates exist?
> > What if the pirates may grow frustrated and end their commitment, will it
> > be likely to create another two parties?
> > ...probably now, because why wont those two new parties fail when the
> > pirates did?
> >
> > Sure, in the long run, the open source movement will break through
> > mainstream, and it might take a year or 10 or 100...
> > ...the question is not if, but how to do it in the fastest possible way,
> so
> > that eventually we can see it with our own eyes.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > ... 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.
> >
> >
> > 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?
> > The pirates might be the first party and eventually the network effect
> > might force a second or third party in.
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > 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.
> > ...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...
> >
> > In the beginning, each party will vote for their candidates and their
> > issues and at that point,
> > it will be "the old traditional structures" (silo structure) modeled in a
> > new environment, which is the plattform and its toolsets.
> > So even if the actual structure (voting on issues and candidates) is
> still
> > the same, the (silo structure) is gone!
> >
> > AND THAT WILL BE THE BEGINNING OF THE END of the old system :-)
> > Because now people can communicate across parties and try to "steal
> > subtrees of voters" for a common issue instead for the old red team vs
> blue
> > team thinking.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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.)
> > >
> >
> >
> > No, i think this view is correct, but slightly biased.
> > There might be several "phases of transition"
> > At first, people might use toolsets and do everything the way they are
> used
> > to,
> > and they will exactly use it because it enables them to do everything
> they
> > way are used to,
> > but only slightly better or with less effort.
> > Even in this phase, different pirates will be elected and different
> issues
> > will be voted for,
> > because ALL pirates participate or at least more than during the "old
> days".
> > Then other pirates might use the same tooling and use it in the old way,
> > but ...
> > ..what comes with it, is the option for every participant to move freely
> > between parties
> > and hence people, no matter if pirates or democrats or republicans or
> > whatever might still be elected,
> > but if they are, its for what they, as persons stand for or what their
> > skillset is and NOT because of who they know
> > or what party they are member of.
> > So the parties as such (in the sense of blue team vs red team) will have
> no
> > effect anymore, and if pirates or republicans or democrats
> > will get elected, its not for the blue team vs red team reason anymore,
> > because those boundaries will have been blurred beyond recognition
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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 :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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??? :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > No, i dont think so.
> > I dont think there will be NEW open parties out of NOWHERE and there wont
> > be multiples of them.
> > It will be existing parties who adopt toolsets and hopefully ones that
> are
> > commited to the "breaking the network effect" approach.
> > One of those parties might be the pirates (when it comes to germany), but
> > the green party or others are equally good.
> > Once, ONE relevant political party (no matter if its the new pirates or
> > already established greens or whatsoever),
> > has adopted the system, and it really SOLVES a REAL PROBLEM for the party
> > members, then its very likely,
> > that more people will use it and eventually the party will be more open
> and
> > will come to better solutions and will start to grow
> > and the network effect might kick in.
> > ...this will make other parties vanish, BUT of course, they dont want to
> > vanish, so they adopt the same system.
> > ...and now, superficially, it looks as if nothing has changed.
> > It's still the same parties as before and they still vote for their
> issues
> > and their candidates the same way they were used to during the old days.
> > (and from the top down perspective) ...thats the leaders perspective, it
> > will look like as if nothing has changed, only a "new tool" underneath.
> >
> > ...but from the bottom up (means from a regular voters perspectives) it
> > will be a new world.
> > The old structures, which are still effective will be effective for the
> > time it will take for HABITS TO FADE when they are not enforced any
> longer.
> > The REAL BOUNDARIES are gone and thus, the habits of blue team vs red
> team
> > will fade... might take some months, maybe some years,
> > but people will start to build ad hoc cross party alliances, which will
> be
> > ISSUE BASED instead of blue team vs red team based.
> >
> > Thats who parties will be destroyed. Their RELEVANCE will FADE :-) ...it
> > wont happen over night, but it will happen for sure.
> >
> > THATs how i see it.
> >
> >
> >
> > > The party system
> > > as a whole is not seriously shaken until the primary toolsets start to
> > > gain users.
> >
> >
> > how will it start? :-)
> >
> >
> > > The timing depends, therefore, on how many developers we
> > > can attract to push the toolsets into beta.
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> >
> > 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 :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Can anyone see a flaw?  Please point to anything that seems doubtful.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, i pointed out everything that came to my mind.
> > I dont see a flaw, i think you've said somehow the same as i did, but it
> > might be slightly different perspectives or maybe distortions caused by
> > one's personal "colored glasses" :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > 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/
> >
> >
> >
> > thanks, have done so.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> >
> > What is the network effect? :-)
> > A network effect will only exist if there is an inside and an outside.
> > If all are within and structures are as everyone wishes they were, there
> > will be no network effect.
> > A network effect can be seen at least from two perspectives.
> > ...1. it sucks aways everything into something that i am not part of
> > ...2. it brings everything into ONE and i am part of and therefor things
> > are no longer devided.
> >
> > So if there is an OPEN PLATFORM, with many toolsets that could be easily
> > substituted by one another,
> > ... what exactly is that?
> > You could say we already have such a thing, it's called the web standards
> > or maybe basic stuff like
> > the protocols stacked above one another in an OSI model way, where one
> > layer is stacked above another.
> >
> > a few decades back, people thought: "if only everything was open and we
> > could all use an underlying method",
> > then people could move more freely between software, because there would
> > not be a network effect because of protocols and stuff.
> >
> > same with languages. If you speak english, you can much more easily move
> in
> > the english speaking part of the world than you could without.
> > The better translation services become (maybe we might soon end up with a
> > BABEL FISH), the easier it will become to even move in parts of the world
> > where you dont speak language (this is a vote-mirroring-machanism)
> > => What you say in your language, will be translated into their language
> >
> > So the best possible thing one could possibly achive is to move forward
> but
> > stay OPEN, so that others can join in.
> > This way, you use all your strength to create a network effect (and so
> will
> > others).
> >
> > The difference is, if YOU succeed, then all others can join you and will
> > not loose their investments or at least only their selfish investments.
> > This might also be exactly WHY you win and can create the network effect,
> > because you follow a vision that encompasses everyones best interest and
> > not only your own best interest.
> >
> > Its a lot harder to think about a vision or a solution that will be in
> > everyones best interest in the long run, but if you manage to do so, you
> > have a huge advantage over all the other approaches.
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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 <alexander.praetorius at serapath.de>
*[web] *http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Benutzer:Serapath
***********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20130418/ac09aa5e/attachment-0004.htm>