[pp.int.general] Pirate Manifesto Reloaded

[aloa5]

Ole Husgaard schrieb:

> Perhaps you think this is what PP SE wants to do in their local
> election. It is not, according to the material I have read from PP SE.
> There is a big difference between adapting a political program and
> political bartering.

Hello,

first I have to say a great sorry for not remembering you as a Danish 
Pirate. :/ I should.

I don´t know if I understand the difference between bartering and 
adapting. For me a voting as another party wants me to without any own 
point/thinking about is an adaption (without contradiction). When you 
have own ideas on issues you can be obliged to vote as another party 
want also - as a compromise for voting with you in your points. This is 
something different (compromise<>adaption for a certain time). Perhaps 
you can explain bartering.



> Anyway, this variation does not make sense in EP, as we we do not have
> all other parties belonging to two almost equal-sized blocks as they
> have in the Swedish Parliament.
> 
>> Variation B)
>> - P1 have Preferences (I1) - and have either more (non-core)issues with
>> less preferences or will will have/find an own position for every voting
>> via LD.
>>
>> - P2 as above - but we don´t adapt the program.
>>   
> Perhaps this is closer to what we would prefer in PP DK. But since I am
> not completely sure I fully understand the above, I better state it in
> my own words: We would like to join a group, if we can get them to vote
> for our core issues in exchange for us voting like they want in other
> cases unless we see a reason to vote differently. We do not want to say
> which group upfront, but wants to talk with the groups that can offer us
> the best deals. We may even switch groups, if another group offers us a
> better deal. OTOH we respect if EP members from other countries do not
> want to join a group. If we all get enough seats for a Pirate group, we
> should of course form our own Pirate group.


"See" reasons to vote differently? Question... how do you "see"?

I wrote above about having other issues as a program or "see" via Liquid 
Democracy if a voting is critical (vote per vote). Are there other 
possibilities to "see" such things?

Maybe I am wrong... but I cannot hinder feeling that some phrases in 
this declaration and (past) in the manifest are used without thinking 
over the essence of them (without seeing the implications and follow 
them to the end).

>> Now we have two groups wich will be affected by a decision -
>> party-members and voters.
>> For now I talk about the group of voters (just in order to follow your
>> arguments; even members as well).
>>
>> VotersA (vA):
>> They don´t care about other issues.
>>
>> VotersB (*vB*):
>> Thy care about other issues.
>>   
> We (PP DK) do not really care about other issues. We care strongly about
> our core issues, and want to use the other issues for political bartering.

Maybe you are all like vA - and would say: "well, no problem at all 
building 10 Atomreactors here and going with EU-troops to Afghanistan". 
But I think the most of the voters does not that easy ;). (For sure not 
in Germany - social problems and energy-prices, EU and, and, and... are 
top-themes here)

>> Quoting Amelia:
>> "Deciding to join a coalition in Europarl gives voters a chance to know
>> what they will be able to expect from us in non-core issues. "
>>   
> I don't agree with Amelia here, as the voters will not know which group
> we join before the election. They should know our core issues, and that
> we will join a group if they can support us with these.

The question here ist - does the voter want to know what he can expect 
in non-core issues?

Answering this (and: correctly.. not ideological or egocentric) - is a 
central question for the strategy.



>> About wich group of voters do we talk about here? We talk (for sure) not
>> about Group vA - because they do not care about any other issues. If we
>> have own points of view before an election or find them before a certain
>> voting does not make a difference. So we talk obviously about group *vB*
>> -- the voters wich care about other issues.
>>
>> Up to this point I think we agree (because this are just written
>> facts so that I can shorten statements in further discussions). From 
>> this point we will have discussions about logic, political profile and 
>> principles.
>>
>>
>> The arguments for not more issues has been: *Neutrality*
>> Now (your) change here: "voters.. will be able to expect from us.."
>>   
> I did not say so !

Sorry for mentioning this. :/

>> If this is NOT fact - or we say "we will have a coalition with left or
>> greens" - we are NOT neutral any longer, because we *adapt* (the voter
>> can expect...) the program of these party´s. (remember -- we are only
>> speaking of group vB here!!)
>>   
> But who is talking about coalitions or adapting political problems? I don't.
> 
> I talk about joining a group if it can give us better influence and
> better support for our core issues. And I talk about political bartering
> with non-core issues.

Here I have a problem of understanding (like above).


>> We *cut off* the possible voters (*and* members) wich do not really
>> belong to greens and/or "left´s" (we talk about vB - don´t argue with
>> vA... they don´t care about).
>>   
> Of course we do, if we enter coalitions or adapt political programs.

It depends on the circumstances of a coalition. When we have own ideas 
on non-core-issues then we don´t adapt another program even if we say 
yes to the points of the other party. *Then* it´s a real deal. (We give 
up our points wich we care less - if you help us with our points wich we 
find important).

It´s difficult to explain why the other way (to wich I say "adapting") 
is problematic. I will explain later.


>> So - leaving the point of neutrality (supposed reason for not having
>> other issues) to get might. (opportunism)
>>   
> You are right that political bartering is a form of opportunism.
> 
> But I am not talking about leaving neutrality on non-core issues. Your
> political opinion on a non-core issue can still be neutral, even if you
> - at a specific time - vote other than abstain on it if this means you
> can get more votes for the core issues.
> 
>> I will draw a (personal!) conclusion here (you may have others - this we 
>> will have to discuss).
>>
>> If we want to be "neutral" we have to get own ideas on different issues. 
>>   
> As soon as we get a political opinion on a new issue, we are no longer
> neutral on that issue.

"YesNo"

Yes - this is (obviously) true for *one* issue.

No - this is (in some cases) untrue for a *sum* of issues (obviously 
it´s true if the sum would be an adaption of another party).


>>   We can have a program or get the ideas voting for voting via Liquid 
>> Democracy (even - if we have decided over a lot of single points via LD 
>> we will have an idea of a partial/complete program as well).
>>   
> Please be careful with simple democracy for taking a stance on new issues.
> 
> For example, think about new issue A. You get a stance on it because 55%
> are in favor. But 40% leave because they disagree. Repeat this with
> issues B and C, and you are down to 22% of your original support.

This is (much) too simple for explaining real politic behaviour. And 
obviously it´s untrue... I don´t think that not one big party on the 
world has less then 1000 Points in a programm (... and of yourse you 
don´t want to tell me that the calculation wich you make above would 
bring another result then 0,x% for them).

Maybe! you are correct when you say "...original 100%-Support" (even if 
I yould negotiate these 100% as there are great differences in the core 
issues as well).


> IMHO taking a stance on new issues must be widely discussed, and near
> full consensus should be obtained before voting on it.

Sure - as any point in a program in Germany there is imho a 2/3-voting 
needed.


>> In Germany there is imho actual no way for a coalition with the 
>> conservatives - and (from my point of view) only a littel chance about a 
>> coalition with the liberal. So we would more seem to be "Green/Left" to 
>> the voters anyway - and cut off the rest of the potential voters from 
>> middle/right (wich are 50% as well). A coalition (and an adaption of 
>> there program) would be sure (in case of winning seats and/or promising 
>> a coalition).
>>
>> "Neutrality" as such is not possible - or only as long as we do not join 
>> any other party -- what you correctly mentioned would be a lack of 
>> influence (but still is possible). And if we set true that we need other 
>> partys for getting influence and if we set true that having no own ideas 
>> on non-core issues (via LD or otherwise) would imply a deficit of 
>> neutrality and loosing vB-Voters -- we cannot say we will join a group 
>> with the reason Amalia gives: "....gives voters a chance to know...."
>>   
> I agree, as we would leave neutrality if we in advance say that we want
> to join a certain group.

Adding (and this is something completely different!):
You leave (in some cases - as here in Germany) neutrality if you say in 
advance that you *not* want to join a certain party. (this is a... 
better *the*... real problem of neutrality)



> But please note that groups in EP are not parties. Groups in EP often
> contain many parties, so joining a group does not mean joining another
> party.

Maybe - I don´t have a closer look at them. Just thought there were 
conservatives, greens, left, very left, eurosceptians. At the 
conservative/left-line wich (to simplify) divide Germans 50:50 I see a 
problem for neutrality... the conservatives introduce normally the 
monitoring systems - so they are (at this time) a kind of no-go. This is 
not a problem at the core issues. It´s a problem for the non-core-issues 
wich define conservative/lefts anyway. If the voter can see:
1) PP will never go into a coalition with the conservatives
2) PP has no own (perhaps "conservative" points)
3) PP adapts (as a direct conclusion of 1 and 2) left programs

we are not neutral and cut off conservatives (and maybe liberals... wich 
I think are not really a few).

So "neutral" is not "neutral". I know it sounds strange....

> 
>> A long text. But I think I could not make it much shorter :/. And I´m 
>> sorry about my written english (lack of practice). *My* preference is 
>> logical thinking :).
>>   
> I think I understand most of what you write.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Ole Husgaard.
> 
>