6 ms·

As the article hints at in saying that the Icelandic Pirate Party garnered enough votes to have a single seat in the parliament, a Pirate Party, or any niche-is

by btown 13y ago

As the article hints at in saying that the Icelandic Pirate Party garnered enough votes to have a single seat in the parliament, a Pirate Party, or any niche-issue political party, really only makes sense in a proportional representation system ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation ). There is simply not enough support or funding for any candidates to have a chance at a national level. However, there is a small chance at a state legislature level, since (to my knowledge) most US citizens don't care much about state legislature elections, and a sufficiently charismatic and well-funded Pirate Party candidate might be able to amass enough votes in a relatively well-educated area. Thus the current US Pirate Party's focus on having state-level organization: http://uspirates.org/about/get-involved/ http://uspirates.org/about/get-involved/

polshaw 13y ago
PR would be great (I struggle to see FPTP as really democratic to be honest- it systematically supports entrenched interests), but if you aren't actively working on changing the system, then you have to work with the system. The partial saving grace of the existing system is that even though niche parties will never get elected, their aims can still be achieved-- enough votes to a 3rd party can scare the main players into changing their policies. No one ever won an election for women's suffrage, but the policies still got adopted.
- walshemj 13y ago
  Looking from out side from a country that has FPTP But the USA still doesn't have two parties in the modern sense you have two wide coalitions (18th century style) with a considerable amount of horse trading and pork keeping people on side. Read Williams Hugues bio of pitt the younger to see what I mean.
  - aptwebapps 13y ago
    Inverse TL;DR: "Read Williams Hugues bio of pitt the younger to see what I mean."
flyinRyan 13y ago
So the absolute top priority for the US pirate party should be voting reform at the state level. If people see how much vastly better alternative systems are at the state level they're likely to start complaining about it at the federal level.
cpleppert 13y ago
On the contrary independent candidates do better in larger elections that are given more attention by the media. Smaller local elections are dominated by parties with an established infrastructure that can turn out their members in low turnout elections.
noloqy 13y ago
You're right, and I believe you pinpoint the problem with the US political system. It's pretty much impossible for anybody with out of the ordinary political views to be represented at a high level in the US democracy. It will take a revolution for a bipartisan system to break.
- Androsynth 13y ago
  it doesnt need a revolution (that would be a very bad thing given how much power our military has). It just needs to start locally (we all understand how exponential growth works). rather than running for US president in '16, the goal should be small, eg x% of state senators from the bay area.
  - polshaw 13y ago
    There is such a thing as a peaceful revolution. Although I feel such a revolution in the US is less likely than in almost everywhere else.
    - xradionut 13y ago
      Although it's apparent that the US military and police are prepped for widespread civil unrest.
- Finster 13y ago
  Actually, it's working as intended. The Founders specifically wanted to avoid the impact of niche factions on the process. While, they didn't set out to create a 2-party system, per se, the alternative is actually much worse, because you end up in situations where a niche faction can wield disproportionately large amounts of power through the use of political coalitions and kingmaking. This still happens, sure, but it's isolated to the parties themselves, where they are incentivized to appeal to a larger base, which minimizes factional influence from the get-go.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    It's worth pointing out that "working as intended" isn't necessarily "working the right/ideal way".
Finster 13y ago
The problem with this approach is that copyright laws are strictly Federal issues. It's one of the few powers that is explicitly granted to the Federal government. Where one could make an argument that states ought to regulate things like education or health care, you simply cannot make that argument for copyright. If we wanted states to be able to make laws regarding copyright we would need a Constitutional amendment.
- icebraining 13y ago
  The US Constitution allows the Federal government to manage copyright; it doesn't force it, so you could still make the case that it shouldn't (just not on Constitutional grounds).
  - Finster 13y ago
    True. Congress could pass legislation allowing states to manage copyright. I won't be holding my breath for Congress to vote itself less power.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    From a legal scholarship standpoint, that would be an improper delegation of Congressional authority; it's part of the job description if you like, and thus an assignment of responsibility as much as facility. The word 'shall' is construed in law as a mandatory assignment, as opposed to saying Congress 'may' do something (ie if it feels like it).
    - icebraining 13y ago
      Well, it says "shall have Power", not shall do X. But I'm certainly no constitutional scholar.
- btown 13y ago
  I would imagine that they would see state legislature seats as a springboard to legitimize the party on a national stage, not as an end in themselves.
DennisP 13y ago
A couple years ago I went to a weekend seminar on political activism, taught by some long-time GOP political consultants. They said there is one good use for third-parties at the national level, and that's to punish one of the major parties. They told a story about Democrats in one state putting up a (national) candidate for the House with a poor environmental record. Republicans in that district consistently got 45% of the vote. The environmentalists went Green Party that year, and the Republican candidate won with the usual 45%. Two years later, the Democrats learned their lesson and picked a strong environmentalist candidate. The Republican got his 45% again and the Democrat won handily. To use this strategy you have to be willing to put up with some short-term pain, but if you're successful once you'll be in a strong negotiating position for a good while to come. The voters with power are single-issue voters willing to switch parties.

by btown 13y ago

polshaw 13y ago

PR would be great (I struggle to see FPTP as really democratic to be honest- it systematically supports entrenched interests), but if you aren't actively working on changing the system, then you have to work with the system. The partial saving grace of the existing system is that even though niche parties will never get elected, their aims can still be achieved-- enough votes to a 3rd party can scare the main players into changing their policies. No one ever won an election for women's suffrage, but the policies still got adopted.

walshemj 13y ago
Looking from out side from a country that has FPTP But the USA still doesn't have two parties in the modern sense you have two wide coalitions (18th century style) with a considerable amount of horse trading and pork keeping people on side. Read Williams Hugues bio of pitt the younger to see what I mean.
- aptwebapps 13y ago
  Inverse TL;DR: "Read Williams Hugues bio of pitt the younger to see what I mean."

flyinRyan 13y ago

So the absolute top priority for the US pirate party should be voting reform at the state level. If people see how much vastly better alternative systems are at the state level they're likely to start complaining about it at the federal level.

cpleppert 13y ago

On the contrary independent candidates do better in larger elections that are given more attention by the media. Smaller local elections are dominated by parties with an established infrastructure that can turn out their members in low turnout elections.

noloqy 13y ago

You're right, and I believe you pinpoint the problem with the US political system. It's pretty much impossible for anybody with out of the ordinary political views to be represented at a high level in the US democracy. It will take a revolution for a bipartisan system to break.

Androsynth 13y ago
it doesnt need a revolution (that would be a very bad thing given how much power our military has). It just needs to start locally (we all understand how exponential growth works). rather than running for US president in '16, the goal should be small, eg x% of state senators from the bay area.
- polshaw 13y ago
  There is such a thing as a peaceful revolution. Although I feel such a revolution in the US is less likely than in almost everywhere else.
  - xradionut 13y ago
    Although it's apparent that the US military and police are prepped for widespread civil unrest.
Finster 13y ago
Actually, it's working as intended. The Founders specifically wanted to avoid the impact of niche factions on the process. While, they didn't set out to create a 2-party system, per se, the alternative is actually much worse, because you end up in situations where a niche faction can wield disproportionately large amounts of power through the use of political coalitions and kingmaking. This still happens, sure, but it's isolated to the parties themselves, where they are incentivized to appeal to a larger base, which minimizes factional influence from the get-go.
- saraid216 13y ago
  It's worth pointing out that "working as intended" isn't necessarily "working the right/ideal way".

Finster 13y ago

The problem with this approach is that copyright laws are strictly Federal issues. It's one of the few powers that is explicitly granted to the Federal government. Where one could make an argument that states ought to regulate things like education or health care, you simply cannot make that argument for copyright. If we wanted states to be able to make laws regarding copyright we would need a Constitutional amendment.

icebraining 13y ago
The US Constitution allows the Federal government to manage copyright; it doesn't force it, so you could still make the case that it shouldn't (just not on Constitutional grounds).
- Finster 13y ago
  True. Congress could pass legislation allowing states to manage copyright. I won't be holding my breath for Congress to vote itself less power.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  From a legal scholarship standpoint, that would be an improper delegation of Congressional authority; it's part of the job description if you like, and thus an assignment of responsibility as much as facility. The word 'shall' is construed in law as a mandatory assignment, as opposed to saying Congress 'may' do something (ie if it feels like it).
  - icebraining 13y ago
    Well, it says "shall have Power", not shall do X. But I'm certainly no constitutional scholar.
btown 13y ago
I would imagine that they would see state legislature seats as a springboard to legitimize the party on a national stage, not as an end in themselves.

DennisP 13y ago

A couple years ago I went to a weekend seminar on political activism, taught by some long-time GOP political consultants. They said there is one good use for third-parties at the national level, and that's to punish one of the major parties. They told a story about Democrats in one state putting up a (national) candidate for the House with a poor environmental record. Republicans in that district consistently got 45% of the vote. The environmentalists went Green Party that year, and the Republican candidate won with the usual 45%. Two years later, the Democrats learned their lesson and picked a strong environmentalist candidate. The Republican got his 45% again and the Democrat won handily. To use this strategy you have to be willing to put up with some short-term pain, but if you're successful once you'll be in a strong negotiating position for a good while to come. The voters with power are single-issue voters willing to switch parties.