Helping the Pirate Party to vanish

[Michael Allan]

Maybe this should be published.  If the party system isn't about to
fall apart - if the argument can be refuted or undermined - then we
want to know that in advance.  An academic paper plus a Web teaser
would probably force the issue one way or another; either prove us
wrong on paper, or give us the resources to run the experiment.


Alexander Praetorius said:
> > An elector who participates in the open primaries will probably
> > want to vote for an open party.  The elector need not participate
> > in the primaries, of course, but open primaries are more
> > meaningful and interesting (c and d) than closed primaries.
> 
> Yes, but WHY should anyone become an elector who participates in the
> open primaries in the first place?

By "elector", I mean someone who is eligible to vote on election day.
So most citizens of age are already electors.

> > But it no longer matters what party the elector votes for (open or
> > not).  The election results are more-or-less the same regardless
> > (c).  (e) The mass media will inform people of this strange news.
> > People will want to know what it means.  Journalists will explain:
> > "The parties are dying."
>
> No, i dont think so.  They only started to cover pirates, when they
> had a lot of voters voting for them. Currently they dont cover
> pirate stuff at all.  The media covers those things which have
> impact to some degree and impact means, a lot of people are affected
> by something.  So if you have open primaries and two open paper
> parties, that means, its still a lifeless construct.  Media will not
> cover it. ...

You missed point (c), Alex.  The open candidate list is largely
elected to the Bundestag even if nobody votes for an open party on
election day.  The votes could all go to the Union, SPD, etc. as
usual, and *still* the open list would be largely elected.  In that
sense, the open parties always win.  They are unbeatable.  That's food
for thought if it's true, and it's also newsworthy.

> > I think the motivation is (d).  Nowhere else can I (a German
> > citizen) discuss and vote on the membership of the Bundestag, the
> > candidacy of the Chancellor, and the thousands of official
> > appointments (direct and indirect) of the Chancellor's office.
> 
> yes you can.  join the pirates and you can discuss and vote on the
> membership.  ...

Not for the government as whole, you can't.  The Pirate Party's
candidate list is not the assured membership of the entire Bundestag;
nor is the Pirate's leader the assured Chancellor; nor are any of the
other primary nominees of the party assured of appointment in the
government.  These assurances can be provided only by open electoral
primaries, and the Pirate Party is not hosting any (d).
 
> > So the way to move forward is to bring two toolsets together to
> > eliminate the primary network effect (i.e. host an open primary).
> > That's the fastest way I can see.
> 
> yes, but which two toolsets? I feel the community aspect should be
> added.  In addition to what you've said, there should be communities
> chosen for strategic reasons.  ...to make it even faster.  (That
> will not prevent any other communities from using any one of the two
> first toolsets, but at least it will make sure, that the communities
> targeted in the first place are huge, so the features are catered to
> their needs)

Yes, maybe a community can help in bringing two toolsets together.
This has been my hope for AG MFT and other Pirates.  It's worth a try.

> > But the Pirate Party has not adopted an open primary (d). ...
> 
> They have.  An open primary cannot be anonymous. People have to
> authenticate themselves in some way.  Pirates do not deny people to
> join in :-) You can participate in crafting the party program, even
> if you are not member of the pirates. ...

If the primary votes of outsiders were counted equal to the member's
votes *and* could be cast on facilities beyond the control of the
Pirate Party (or any other organization), then that would be an open
*program* primary.  It would enable the German citizens to craft
consensus programs for the government as a whole.  Further, if it were
backed by open *electoral* primaries, then the consensus programs
would be assured of implementation.  But none of this is the case.
The Pirate Party does not (at least not yet) enable any of this.

> > ... The same is true of the CDU/CSU Union and the SPD.  So the
> > Pirate Party is not applying any pressure to these other parties
> > in favour of open primaries.  (Conceivably it might by first
> > destroying itself, but I think that's too much to expect of any
> > party organization.)
>
> The CDU/CSU and will never use digital tools in order to enable all
> of their members to participate. ...

It wouldn't help them to do so.  As noted previously (quoted below),
Union members will feel compelled to join in the open electoral
primaries *regardless* of what the Union does.  Open primaries are
necessarily beyond Union control.  So it no longer matters what kind
of tooling a party organization supports (or does not support); the
action occurs outside of the party organizations.  All of it.

> > No, I think the pressure is felt equally by all parties, and it
> > falls mostly on the party supporters.  If SPD supporters do not
> > participate (b) in the open electoral primaries, then SPD
> > candidates (a) will do poorly in the results.  The same applies to
> > the Pirates.  They must participate in the open primary, or the
> > Pirate candidates will fall behind in the results.  This is the
> > pressure.
> 
> YES, but this assumes, that the open primaries in itself are of any
> significance at all, which they are not, because initially, like
> today, there are 0 participants in open primaries, thats why
> established parties do not notice and do not care.

We cannot have participants today, because we have no open primary for
them to participate in.  To have an open primary, we must eliminate
the primary network effect between at least two primary toolsets.

> > The rush to the open electoral primaries in order to save the
> > party candidates is a rush *out* of the parties.  This is the
> > crucial point.  It's inevitable and it happens fast.
> 
> yes, but only if the open primaries are of any significance. What
> you are talking about is the network effect.  Once, the open
> primaries gain serious traction and accumulate a critical mass of
> participants, then the network effect will force the established
> parties to adopt it too to prevent further "rush outs".

Technically it is not a network effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

No, I think the main attraction of an open electoral primary is that
it provides reliable information about the upcoming election (who
ought we to elect?) that is unavailable from any other source.  So
there's an outrush of members and other loyal supporters seeking that
information outside the parties and contributing to it.  The parties
cannot do anything to prevent this, neither by action nor inaction.

The "life blood" will flow out of the parties, because all the value
is in the mixing of it.

> > > ... Why late 1800s?  isnt this an issue we have since the
> > > beginning of time? or at least throught the whole history of
> > > mankind? ...
> >
> > I mean the network effect in *primary elections*.  Who ought to be
> > elected?  Who ought to be on the ballot?  The system that answers
> > these questions for us dates from the late 1800s.  It's the modern
> > party system.  It's held together by the network effect in its
> > primary electoral facilities that forces the participants into the
> > largest of the parties.  Eliminate that network effect by enabling
> > them to range freely between two primary electoral facilities - no
> > matter how small - and the entire party system falls to pieces on
> > that ability.
> 
> Like if team blue and team red would both agree to use such a open
> primary toolset and do vote mirroring, problem would be solved,
> right? ...

No, I don't think that's the trigger.  Organized teams (parties) have
no enabling role.  Participation is an individual decision.  Crucially
the parties cannot prevent their own candidates from appearing in the
open primary and extending the choices, nor prevent their own members
from discussing and voting on those choices.  Whatever the parties do
- or fail to do - is pretty much without relevance.  The future is in
the hands of members and non-members who act outside of all party
control.  That is why the parties are finished.

The open primary is anchored in the unorganized part of society known
as the lifeworld.  It is (or will be) an institution of the lifeworld
as opposed to the administrative system (the other aspect of society).
At no point does the open primary depend on any particular
organization.  It is always free (born free), and it confers freedom
on those who use it.

Mike