<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
The question in the long run is whether that is fair.<br>
Why does an opinion of somebody in Luxemburg counts more than that of
someone in kenya or China?<br>
<br>
Nevertheless, this is probably the best system for PPI. Even though it
will be harder to change the official opinion of the bigger parties as
a member of that party like Sweden or Germany) than in a small one, the
official opinion of those bigger parties will have a bigger impact, no
matter if it's one vote per country or not.<br>
<br>
If we, in the long run, found a European party as well (for the
European parlament) we should not apply the type of organization we
chose/will choose for PPI though (which makes sense, as the European
party would, even though it serves the same long-term goal in the same
movement, employ very different methods than PPI and also sets
different objectives). While it made sense for the EC to put a 'one
vote for each country' policy in place. Today this policy is outdated
however, a vote for the European parlament cast in Germany is much less
valuable than one cast in Sweden (or Luxemburg or Malta).<br>
A PP.EU shouldtake that into account. PPI should not, or at least not
until we have free worldwide elections for the UN (or a similair
institution).<br>
<br>
On the other hand it was very important to establish a system where PPI
can not dominate a singel party on it's stance in politics (just
imagine the Danish and Finnish pirate parties ganging up to tell the
Swedish party on what to do. That is basically what could be happening
in the european commission.<br>
<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Justus<br>
<br>
On 22.04.10 16:26, Alexander Bock wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:392C862B-BAB9-4ABE-B095-D4434A9EA6AC@alexander-bock.eu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Am 22.04.2010 um 15:39 schrieb Gregory Engels:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
On 21.04.2010, at 19:51, Alex wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I, too, don't see how this is a problem. To me this all seems very similar to the UN.
Alex</pre>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
____________________________________________________
Pirate Parties International - General Talk
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general">http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>