[pp.int.general] The conference - what went wrong; how can we do better?

[Justus Ršoemeth]

Regional splittings don't neccessary have to be like that however, 
historically, both within the Belgian system (no matter which party) and 
within the German christian democrat system there have been reasons to 
have more than one party (they cooperate to a degree, however, and are 
not electable in the whole country).

If a similair thing would occur for example in Spain, with a Catalan 
party emerging, who would be to force them into mergin with the 
nationwide one, as long as they can work together (and decide on who to 
send to PPI). Saying that this is neccessarly a weakening of the 
movement is not right, imo. It can be, but doesn't have to. (now the 
situation we had in France in the US was, however, because both were 
competing against each other).

On 22.04.10 17:42, Nicolas Sahlqvist wrote:
> Yes, it is not in PPI's interest to split up the PP's into smaller 
> parts that will be unable to accomplish there goals, that is not in 
> the PP's or PPI's interest.
>
>
> - Nicolas
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Justus Ršoemeth <squig at dfpx.de 
> <mailto:squig at dfpx.de>> wrote:
>
>     If I understood it correctly it depends:
>
>     If two parties within a country can't agree on who will get the
>     voting power both of them can join the PPI, but none of them as
>     ordinary member (ie no voting power).
>
>     But I guess that only applies if both parties are about equally
>     strong. If someone were to found a second national party in
>     Germany it doesn't seem a good idea to take the German parties
>     ordinary membership away because of that (13000+ members et all).
>
>     On 22.04.10 17:21, Fedor Khod'kov wrote:
>
>         Alexander Bock<lists at alexander-bock.eu
>         <mailto:lists at alexander-bock.eu>>  writes:
>
>
>             Am 22.04.2010 um 15:39 schrieb Gregory Engels:
>
>
>                 On 21.04.2010, at 19:51, Alex wrote:
>
>
>                     i agree. 1 vote per country makes no sense. and it
>                     also implies no
>                     flexibility whatsoever.
>                     what if 1 country has more than 1 party?
>
>                 in the current statutes there can be only one Ordinary
>                 Member
>                 per country, and if there are more than one party in a
>                 country,
>                 they can form a federation and join together. They
>                 still will be
>                 sharing a single vote.
>
>             I, too, don't see how this is a problem. To me this all
>             seems very
>             similar to the UN.
>
>         In the UN, each country is represented by their (supposedly)
>         legitimate
>         government.  Is there any way to determine who is legitimate
>         representative of some country's pirates if different parties
>         from this
>         country fail to form a federation?  Or the country will be
>         represented
>         by party who has the right to represent their country and vote
>         simply
>         because they were first to claim a place in PPI?
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________
>     Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>     pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>     <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
>     http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20100422/dca99da8/attachment-0001.htm>