Requirements for a Pirate Party

To discuss a manifest for PPI

Moderator: NoEwS

Postby Aloa5 » Thu Nov 02, 2006 9:58 am

It needs to be pointed out in this very context, that the restrictions imposed against "additional" themes has been highly relevant in the swedish PP's strategy for how the party's main views would get the possibility to be accepted by "the rest" of the swedish parlament.

And this would be a point in wich I just would say NOT to be against additional points.

- Do you think that other parties think you are a "serious" party without any thinkings about other points ?
- What "deals" are made when parties join for a period ? What would you have "in hand" at a negotiation for a coalition ?
- What would you vote for when you are in "opposition" at subjects when there are no others to make a deal with ?
(I know only a little bit of business-negotiations - not politics - but I think it´s important to have more in hand than "I say no to all if you don´t say yes to all" if we want to be "more"...... )

I think that we have to be careful not to be a part of a no-go-area very left or very right. All between can be good and a part of a "profile".

May be I am wrong - but I don´t think so. I think other parties and voters think similar then I do.


Regards
ALOA
Last edited by Aloa5 on Thu Nov 02, 2006 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Aloa5
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:34 am
Location: Germany

Postby Donatien » Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Yes, as we can see in the Australian Green Party example, sooner or later you have to say something in some points outside your main policy. In Spain, we've planned to avoid this conflict by letting the people themselves to say what they want us to do, in some kind of "direct-democracy" (it would be quite long to explain how it will works in detail). In general, I think that this sould be a free problem, so every party in every country should decide what is better. I thinks it's not a problem for being a pirate party, as long as we continue supporting the central issues of the pirates :)

To give an example about this question of "outside ideas"... In the Spanish Pirate Party, we're discussing if the international manifest should say that our actions will respect and give support to de Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is not a central issue for a pirate party, but it seems necessary to show everybody that we're not a kind of "revolutionary party" (our name doesn't help in that point), but a serious and respectful party.
We have already added this point to our own statute, but we're discussing if this should be mentioned or not in a universal manifest of pirate parties.

What do you think about it?
Donatien
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:16 am
Location: Barcelona

Having observed for a while...

Postby Rick Falkvinge » Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:09 pm

Ok, I've been looking at this thread for a while to see what would emerge. I see basically three arguments.

The first is; we shouldn't limit ourselves to a certain set of issues, we may need to speak up on related issues as well, and we must be free to evolve. To those that have perceived this limitation, I must be a terrible writer -- the draft manifesto says EXACTLY that related issues may be brought into the program after consideration. The keyword "should not" means "don't do this without thinking".

So the relevant paragraph might as well have read; "When including issues outside the core issues in the national party platform, think through the consequences carefully first."

The second is; voters want a full program. Well, no, our narrow program worked. We were officially called out as the first serious narrow party by other politicians and got 10x the votes expected (by election researchers). Your mileage may vary, see #1. This is not a single-issue party. This is a party that prioritizes depth before breadth; a "narrow" party, if you like. The issues we bring up have far-reaching repercussions on many aspects of society. Civil Liberties, for instance, touches practically everything.

The third is; see the Greens, they take on lots of different issues. Yes, they do, and exactly therefore there's no chance in hell they'll ever be able to run as a pan-European party. Their platforms vary wildly across different member states, with just "concern for the environment" as a loosely unifying factor. Some Greens want to privatize everything to save the environment, others want to socialize everything to achieve the same goal. Not exactly coherent.

So - to conclude, I need to ask the question; do you WANT a pan-European party? I see little in terms of will to negotiate and find a common ground, rather, I see everybody fighting for their own piece of the puzzle and trying to diverge, rather than converge. If we do want to run as a Europarty, we need to establish that common ground, and that will come at a price for everybody. The draft manifesto is a far cry from the Swedish platform already, and was written to specifically accommodate the concerns that have been voiced here.

So - what do you all want?
Rick Falkvinge
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:42 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Postby Aloa5 » Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:24 pm

Then I will give you my opinion/answer to your post:
see the Greens

Yes I see them. They are the only near-one-point-party I know wich hast some seats in some parliamants. And the question is: would they actually have the seats if they would stay on the fundamental "green" points ? For Germany I think that I am able to say: no at all ! Maybe in early 80´s with a lack of "green ideas" and the cold war there were a ground for them - but the greens here in germany had a full program from the beginning on. Maybe they would have seats in the 80´s - but not later on.
our narrow program worked - got 10x the votes expected

Maybe I have wrong tables - but with 50.000 votes and 10.000 pirates in sweden the people wich expected 5.000 votes were wrong....and there is a long way to go up to 500.000 or more.

My problem with this point of sight is: we can bring together the so called "nerds" (the specialised people) to be active. But this is a method for NGO´s - not for party´s ! We don´t have only to bring this people together - we have to animate voters. This are two different things !

We may have some voters
1.) wich did not vote before ("protest-votings")
2.) wich are only interested in our main points
3.) wich are mainly intersted in our main points

The 2.) -> will mainly get "Pirates"
The 1.) -> will spread between all "protest-party´s"
The 3.) -> are that much enough ?

For me the swedish election may be a lection for this way of politics. There were 4 voters for every pirate. We can be sure, that everyone wich was interested in copyright-problems and filesharing in sweden knew about the Pirate-/Party,Bran,Bay . You have a very wonderful number of active pirates. This is really great work ! You were able to activate everyone wich were part of 2.) . (I wish we could do that everywhere...but we see in other countries that it does not work that well)

But (for me): the aim must/can be-> getting more political influence. And this comes only with more voters.

And to conclude: You will never be able to built a pan-european party with excluding points. If we are able to install at an early point of the foundings in different countries an ground of points we have together, then we can built a pan-european party.


And: The PP in Sweden has written in its manifesto that they will say "yes" to all in a coalition. If they say "yes" for building a new atom-reactor (or "no" or whatever) - they say "yes". What is the difference if other PP´s say "yes" before in the program for the election - if they get more votings (because it´s clear that all people in the country want atom-reactors) ?

This is an agressive argumentation (sure) - but none the less you should think over - it´s not that far away.

You see....I´m not a friend of speaking around - I say clearly what I think ;) . Not to divide - only to stick together (and for getting results! ). It´s better to speak about some things before then to have trouble afterwards.


Best Regards
ALOA
Aloa5
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:34 am
Location: Germany

Postby NoEwS » Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:21 pm

In my opinion is it important, that the EU.pp to be a united and pan-European party.

I know every national party have there own mind and wishes, this have to be discussed.

So we are building a taskforce for the prearrangement for the EU.pp (see http://www.pp-international.net/forum/v ... 7&start=30), where 2-3 pirates from every national party.

And of course we need more topics (beside the general pirete topics, for example: no DRM etc.) to be sapid for european citizen.

But again we have to be united with one standing. :wink:

@aloa5, i think you mean nearly the same.
@Rick Falkvinge, can you send me the location of your prevision of the eu.pp manifest ?

cu NoEwS
User avatar
NoEwS
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 4:32 pm
Location: Germany

Postby gustafsd » Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:16 pm

Aloa5 wrote:And: The PP in Sweden has written in its manifesto that they will say "yes" to all in a coalition. If they say "yes" for building a new atom-reactor (or "no" or whatever) - they say "yes". What is the difference if other PP´s say "yes" before in the program for the election - if they get more votings (because it´s clear that all people in the country want atom-reactors) ?


If "everybody" in your country wants nuclear power, then why would you need to have a opinion in that subject? The other parties take care of that for you. If there is a clear consensus in your country, then what is the point of having an opinion if your only goal is to pleas as many as possible? Why not just say that you will follow the will of the voters?

An example is that the Swedish pp doesn't have a specific stance on things like child molestation/### ==> Bad word, please contact the Admin ! <== ###. This doesn't mean that we support it. We just know that the other parties handle it sufficiently and thus we don't need have it on our agenda.
So stand your ground! - Choose your direction!
Who will decide?
Facing the facts - The lie!
Who will decide?
These are the victims - These are the crimes!
Who will decide?
If you give up the fight...
Who will decide?
--- The Haunted
gustafsd
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:37 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby NoEwS » Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:19 am

gustafsd wrote:If "everybody" in your country wants nuclear power, then why would you need to have a opinion in that subject? The other parties take care of that for you. If there is a clear consensus in your country, then what is the point of having an opinion if your only goal is to pleas as many as possible? Why not just say that you will follow the will of the voters?

An example is that the Swedish pp doesn't have a specific stance on things like child molestation/### ==> Bad word, please contact the Admin ! <== ###. This doesn't mean that we support it. We just know that the other parties handle it sufficiently and thus we don't need have it on our agenda.


gustafsd, you make it too simple for you. In my opinion, if the pirates wants to be a recognized party, they have more in the manifest
except the pirate points (for examle: the mind for/against nuclear power or against child molestation/### ==> Bad word, please contact the Admin ! <== ###).

Because, if we only insistence on our pirate points, than we can forget it to get voted in the eu-parliament, the reason is too less voters.

We have to say what our belief is, but we need a big spectrum of political topics.
User avatar
NoEwS
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 4:32 pm
Location: Germany

Postby gustafsd » Thu Nov 23, 2006 1:06 pm

Why not try to keep it as simple as possible? If everybody in your country is pro nuclear power you can answer any questions regarding nuclear power with "We have no intention of changing our countries policy on nuclear power unless the winning side specifically demands that".

I voted for PP because i think that pp-questions are more important than the difference between the two sides, not because i think that abolishing copyright law is more important than social security.
So stand your ground! - Choose your direction!
Who will decide?
Facing the facts - The lie!
Who will decide?
These are the victims - These are the crimes!
Who will decide?
If you give up the fight...
Who will decide?
--- The Haunted
gustafsd
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:37 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby Aloa5 » Thu Nov 23, 2006 3:53 pm

gustafsd wrote:An example is that the Swedish pp doesn't have a specific stance on things like child molestation/### ==> Bad word, please contact the Admin ! <== ###. This doesn't mean that we support it. We just know that the other parties handle it sufficiently and thus we don't need have it on our agenda.

There are other things to decide.

http://torrentfreak.com/the-swedish-pir ... manifesto/
On any matter outside of our policy statement, we will support and vote for the current government, no matter what we believe individually on different matters.

If others say "yes" to something or "no" to something you will vote for it in the same way. This is what I read here.

I do not say that we must say something to all. But we are in politics here - an we sell something too. We sell our version of the future. A good version of the future.

Just making an example:

Say we have 3 party´s. Red, Black and Greeen´s. And nuclear power (NP) standing for any problem wich may be discussed in public.

Greens say NP-"no". Close all NP´s at once. Blacks say NP-"yes, we need them". Red´s say NP-"no-we want to make a coalition with Green´s".

Then you have a voter (his name is Mike) - may be "filesharer" - wich thinks about voting for a PP. But he don´t like NP´s. Without PP´s he would have votet for the Greens or Red´s. Now it is unsure wich party will win - the Red/Green or the Blacks. So he fears that if he does not vote for the Red/Greens they will "loose" and the blacks will win - building new NP´s.

What will Mike do ?

This is a complex question for him and others. And there are many NP´s in politics. Economy, working, taxes, war/no war, social questions and so on. With every field in wich Mike fears that he could "loose" he has more problems to make a decision.

Now my point of view here:
We do not have to say "yes" or "no". But worse is to say: we vote for the winner of the election.
As I said above: we sell something. We could perhaps say that we don´t want to destroy the earth (no one wants this) and that we should use the technologies of the future.

Or: saying nothing - but let the people believe that we will make good decisions.

We should not adopt any visions of others but make our own vision of the future.

This is what I (personally) think about what is important to get voters. This may be not the same for the group of party-members.

Understanding the difference and the problems wich are going hand-in-hand with this is important ! It may be possible to activate many members with our points - perhaps. For "voters-only" there are other rules.

Just my 2 ct ;)

Regards
ALOA
Aloa5
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:34 am
Location: Germany

Postby gustafsd » Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:54 pm

Yes, but what if pp were to be pro nuclear power? Then your file sharer wouldn't be in doubt anymore. He would certainly not vote for a pp. (maybe not, but you get the point). If we take a stance in the questions where there is a 50/50 distribution amongst the population we will automatically lose half the voters (and members).

On the other hand, when i comes to neighboring subjects as education, we could have an opinion, but not in areas that doesn't belong to us. For an example i think we could work for more effective use of technology in education or use of open/free software to minimize costs, but we shouldn't go into matters like amounts of homework or disciplinary measures available. I don't know if everybody see it but to me there is a clear difference.

I think it would be wise to label ourselves as technology friendly, but i don't think we should include just anything in our agenda.
So stand your ground! - Choose your direction!
Who will decide?
Facing the facts - The lie!
Who will decide?
These are the victims - These are the crimes!
Who will decide?
If you give up the fight...
Who will decide?
--- The Haunted
gustafsd
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:37 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby Aloa5 » Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:22 am

We are not far away from each other :)

General "problem" (I prefer "fact"):
If we take a stance in the questions where there is a 50/50 distribution amongst the population we will automatically lose half the voters (and members).

This is a rule in politic for every question. Yes/No - perhaps 50/50 for every question.

Ask the people:
- do you want more kindergardens - yes or no ?
- nuclear power - yes or no ?
- solar energy - yes or no ?
- lower taxes - yes or no ?
- better roads - yes or no ?

There is still a party in Germany for elder people (translated: "grey panther"). The amount of elder people in Germany is very high - so they should have a loooot of voters on their side ! There is a "car-party" in switzerland. As far as I know they were not that bad 10 years (or so) before. Before other problems got more important.
Both have no chances at all to get 1 or 2% I think. An will not get in any parliament.

So - every "successful" program of a party has to be a sum of important answeres for the voters.

The problems for established partys is that normal voters sometimes don´t see what they are really standing for. There are so much Yes and No´s in the programs that it is too complex and this is one reason for the phenomen of left-right thinkings. It´s easier to handle differences this way.

It´s a " + " for us that we have not that much points and can exactly say what we are standing for - aside from each left-right.
It´s a " - " for us that we have not that much points of greater public interest. Economy and other factors are for very much people more important in the order of problems.


What I want to point out here is:

Only with "our" points we (speaking of Germany) will have no chance at all. And this will be fact in more then one other country as well.

I would not call us technology-friendly (even in problems according to data-mining we are not).

I would like to call us future-friendly. And I would like to see a PP-vision of the future as a program. And around this and our main points I would like to formulate directions.
I believe we don´t have to be a party wich say´s No or Yes to nuclear power - but to say that we will do all we can to look for solutions wich will lead into a good future. That we will proof if hydrogen-engines are good or whatever - and as a reason: in future we will not have to destroy the world.
You can take this as an example for other parts of political issues. Say that we think over the future way of living together. Other partys are much belonging to thinkings for the next few years without any perspective/outlook. As an example the Greens in Germany forced a can-pledge (hope you understand this) or wind-parks or whatever and made the campaign for the election with such (concrete) things. We should not do this - or only if we think that something like this will be leading and be important in future.


So I fully agree with you not to form much Yes´s and No´s for not dividing and loosing too much of our voters. But we should make a vision of the future - our future - wich forms a light in wich the questions of other political issues can be answered. (damned - my english is too bad for such more philosophic discussions :roll: I don´t know enough idioms...... and sensless phrases *rofl* :mrgreen: )


Hope it is clearer that I want to help us and not to divide ! I just want to stick together and help a little bit to form a successful and leading EU-party.


Greetings
ALOA
Aloa5
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:34 am
Location: Germany

Postby NoEwS » Fri Nov 24, 2006 3:10 pm

Nice Aloa5.

Not because im german too, but we have nearly the same thinking.
User avatar
NoEwS
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 4:32 pm
Location: Germany

Postby Aloa5 » Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:13 pm

NoEwS wrote:Nice Aloa5.

Not because im german too, but we have nearly the same thinking.

:D I think i knew that before .

But for the others here at PP. We have those also (in Germany), wich are thinking that we should not (or not that much) go around with other political issues. We have no final decision about this at all.

It seems to be sure for me that we will make a focus on the main issues and some issues around this - perhaps with my "vision" as an ideology of the future.

So - to say this - the my posts above are my opinion and the opinion of some more but not "the opinion" of all Germans or the official (there is no real official at this time).

Regards
ALOA
Aloa5
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:34 am
Location: Germany

Postby John Nilsson » Mon Nov 27, 2006 12:08 am

Aloa5 wrote:It seems to be sure for me that we will make a focus on the main issues and some issues around this - perhaps with my "vision" as an ideology of the future.


If you seek a general ideology I think a very important point of inspiration is this book: http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300110561

I think that an ideology for a pirate party is either centered around the issues raised by this book, or a subset of the same. In case of the latter we should probably try to inspire some sister parties to address the other issues.
John Nilsson
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:59 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby zenislev_v » Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:14 pm

Hello from the Spanish Pirate Party(PIRATA).

We, PIRATA, think that we, all parties, should hold a meeting (or several meetings) before doing anything.

PIRATA uses a simple method to elaborate and approve its statutes and we have accomplished to get a really good statutes. The method consists on elaborating together a preliminar draft of the text, and then the party's members present as many amendments to the text as they want. . After that we hold a separate votation (but of course at the same time) for every amendment. After the modifications elected on that votations, we have a second draft, that is finally approved (or not) as the official statutes of the party on another votation. In the case that this second draft is rejected, the amendment process is restarted.

For every votation there are at least two options: one is leaving the text as it is, the other is modifying it. Two amendments presented by the party's members could modify the same paragraph or article. In that case, those amendments will appear as different options in a single votation. Note that we use (and encourage you to do so) one kind of Geometric Truncated Borda count, where you can choose more than an option and order it according to your preferences.
User avatar
zenislev_v
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:22 pm
Location: Córdoba (Spain)

PreviousNext

Return to Principles of PPI

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests