German Pirate Party Enters 2nd State Parliament

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

German Pirate Party Enters 2nd State Parliament

Posted by Unknown on Monday March 26, 2012 @02:06PM from the former-pirate-turned-navy-legislator dept.

An anonymous reader writes "After its recent success in the Berlin elections, the German Pirate Party scores 7.4% of votes for the state parliament of Saarland, earning them 4 seats out of 51. While the campaign didn't center around copyright issues and/or ACTA (the party's stance is well-known), it centered around open government, access to education, and participative governing models, effectively ridding the party of its 'one issue' notion."

54 of 188 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Working within the rules can still work by Fluffeh · 2012-03-26 14:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

To me, this sort of win, the power that it gives them to promote and further the gains that they stand for is likely to have a MUCH bigger impact on the actual lives of their constituents than all the Occupy movements put together. Recently in Australian politics, the Green Senators have shown themselves to be a wonderful constant badgering voice calling Bullshit when needed and keeping the government here in check. I can't help but hope that the Pirate Party in Australia has similar success.

--
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
1. Re:Working within the rules can still work by vux984 · 2012-03-26 14:23 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  This works in places with a system of government where getting 7% of the votes translates to a voice in government.
2. Re:Working within the rules can still work by Yvanhoe · 2012-03-26 14:36 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Exactly. Having participated in the French PP, I can say that our chances of ever having a representative are far slimer : here you need a majority vote in a district for that to happen. But it can happen through deals with other big parties. "We are worth 3%. We'll call to vote for you if you put net neutrality in your program and let a PP candidate run without your opposition in 3% of the winnable districts"
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
3. Re:Working within the rules can still work by countach · 2012-03-26 14:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The Greens are a mixed bag. Half the time they do a great job of calling Bullshit. Half the time they are the purveyors of the bullshit.
4. Re:Working within the rules can still work by interkin3tic · 2012-03-26 15:09 · Score: 2
  
  As opposed to here in the US where the supposedly more liberal of the two parties controls half the legislative branch and the executive branch, and yet we're talking about tax cuts, invading another oil-rich middle eastern country, and pretty much doing nothing about the deficit.
  
  I realize many slashdotters think this is a result of the two-party system, and I respect that opinion, but I still think the problem has far more to do with the voters. I think giving them more options will merely give them more ways to vote against their own interests.
5. Re:Working within the rules can still work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 15:12 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  "Fellow Earthians,
  Never before has the Universe unfolded such a flower as our collective human intelligence, so far as we know."
  There is more of this sort of inanity from Bob Brown in the speech.
  The Greens talk BS far more than they call it.
6. Re:Working within the rules can still work by GumphMaster · 2012-03-26 15:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Our voting system is more complicated than the various first-past-the-post systems. Generally, however, 7% of the popular vote scores little representation in the Australian House of Representatives either, e.g. Greens hold 1 seat [http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website/HousePartyRepresentation-15508.htm] out of 150 on 11.76% of first preferences [http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website/HousePartyRepresentation-15508.htm]. In our Senate the electoral system works differently and the result is more proportional (e.g. Greens hold 6 of 40 seats on 13.11% of first preferences). The minor parties in our senate hold no direct control of government, but collectively their votes are typically the difference between a measure passing or not given the fairly even balance between the major parties. This is what gives them a voice.
  
  --
  Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
7. Re:Working within the rules can still work by schwitzkroko · 2012-03-26 15:59 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  They are represented in the Saarland parliament now. That is the legislative, not the executive body. Theoretically they could be included into government by a coalition, but this is not going to happen for now.
8. Re:Working within the rules can still work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 16:18 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  > [Citation needed]. No, seriously, I'm genuinely interested.
  Flat-out refusal to support anything with the word "nuclear" is one thing the international Slashdot crowd will get:
  http://greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-and-energy/nuclear
  They wish to close Australia's only nuclear reactor, a research reactor whose main product is radioactive isotopes for medical imaging. The policy also blindly ignores things like thorium cycle fission reactors or even nuclear fusion reactors if they were viable.
9. Re:Working within the rules can still work by rrohbeck · 2012-03-26 19:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "The US has one party with two right wings."
  - Gore Vidal
  
  --
  thegodmovie.com - watch it
10. Re:Working within the rules can still work by tehcyder · 2012-03-26 22:29 · Score: 2
  
  it got "bush" elected, I'll pass, I "don't think" we can top the worst president in history(any country)..,
  Yet Obama managed it somehow. Bush has a good edge over the 3rd place, which makes Obama's accomplishment all the bigger.
  One word: Iraq.
  
  Obama would have had/will have to accidentally nuke Beijing or Berlin or something to equal that level of politico-military stupidity.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
11. Re:Working within the rules can still work by Opportunist · 2012-03-26 23:00 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  That's a pretty good summary from an European point of view.
  It's funny that "left" and "right" are very relative terms. What we consider "right" in Europe would fit the center of the US, while our "left" simply doesn't exist on the US radar. From the vantage point across the pond, the US has a moderate right party and a conservative right party.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
12. Re:Working within the rules can still work by Sabriel · 2012-03-26 23:16 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, the Greens can be a mixed bag, but aren't they all? I also notice in your link that while #17 is to close that reactor, #16 is to promote an alternative method of getting those medical isotopes. I daresay the former isn't going to happen until the latter does.
  Re nukes, while I disagree with any policy that wants to ban nuclear reactors outright (they are still important research and medical tools), as far as commercially-operated nuclear fission reactors go I no longer want them. It boils down to this approximation:
  Technology (Fission Reactors) + Species (Humanity) + Dominant Motive (Profit) = Trouble (With a Chance of Nocturnal Luminescence).
  Or more simply put: we can't be trusted with nuke plants in a commercial setting.
  Like the GP, I'd be seriously, genuinely interested in a workable solution, but it seems like that old internet meme: "Your idea to get rid of spam is technically sound, but will not work because: [X] Humans are involved." Maybe if plant management was under the code of military justice rather than civilian law? People might think thrice about skimming the margins if they knew the result could be a firing squad instead of a golden parachute (but then again, maybe not; stupid people are stupid, and the military is not magically immune to corruption).
13. Re:Working within the rules can still work by Opportunist · 2012-03-26 23:19 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  This is still something that has some serious impact on the politics there.
  When you look at the changes against the last elections, you will almost certainly notice two big losers: FDP and Left Party. Now, the FDP is a given, considering it's "the neo-con party" and neo-con positions have a rather tough times in times when it becomes noticeable that the idea of unbridled economy isn't quite working out so perfectly. The FDP has a general crisis and is getting kicked out of parliaments recently with losses unparalleled in history (aside of a time in history when parties were outlawed...).
  Now, what drove people away from the FDP? A survey amongst former voters labels, in this order, "too much infighting", "has a leader I cannot agree with" and "is a party of social chill" as the three contributing factors why they didn't vote for them anymore. Oddly, it seems that made the PP an alternative, or so it seems. More likely, though, I think that former FDP voters didn't vote this time, and instead people who did not vote earlier went this time, now that they actually saw a party that they can identify with. Personally, I'd call that a very good development, to see people rekindle their interest in politics.
  As a German stand up recently said, people are not fed up with politics, people are fed up with politicians. If anything, a result of 7% from zero is a pretty good indicator that this is actually the case. Those 7% are now 7% that are missing from other parties and that make certain combinations of coalitions possible, or rather, impossible. And that's where those 7% actually start to mean something.
  Looking back at the seats in the parliament now, those 4 seats the PP gained actually wield some power and meaning. Not going into detail how they would have been distributed under other circumstances (first of all that would depend how people who voted for PP would have voted otherwise, if at all, and how the elections arithmetics work), my estimate would be that those seats would have gone to Die Linke and the Greens instead. An SPD/Left Party coalition would have been possible. Not possible now. An SPD/Green coalition, too. Not possible either.
  The fact that these four seats went to the PP now forces a large coalition between CDU and SPD onto the parliament. No other majorities are (sensibly) possible. As odd and unwanted as it may be, the success of the PP saved the conservative's asses on the government bench.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
14. Re:Working within the rules can still work by c0lo · 2012-03-26 23:42 · Score: 2
  
  Surely in Australia you could simply capture all the billions of huge venomous spiders and use them to power treadmills to generate electricity?
  Yea...naaah, mate! No need for it, drop bears and hoop snakes generate plenty.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
15. Re:Working within the rules can still work by interkin3tic · 2012-03-27 06:19 · Score: 2
  
  I think giving them more options will merely give them more ways to vote against their own interests.
  That's illogical, Spock. For example, someone you love smokes marijuana. A friend, a son, a cousin... in your circle of people you care about, some smoke pot.
  Very interesting example, I'm glad you brought that up. I live in California, where pot is decriminalized and largely ignored (except when the police can make a profit off of it, or arrest someone who is a minority, etc.)
  
  Last year, a proposition to fully legalize pot came up. Law enforcement was divided on the issue, with some organizations pointing out that it was a waste of time and money, was counter productive, and only served to strengthen the mexican drug cartels. Other people pointed out how California's defacto biggest product being legalized and taxed could help out with California's massive budget problems. Many conservatives, having finally started to see the light, agreed.
  
  And it failed. Californians THEMSELVES voted to keep it illegal, voted to prevent the state from funding schools with money from a product that was being consumed anyway, voted to waste taxes fighting it, and voted to keep locking people up for a crime that no one actually thinks should be a crime.
  
  This was not a partisan issue. The two party system had absolutely nothing to do with it. This was just voters acting against their own interests.
  
  And it gets worse. The most vocal opponents to marijuana being legalized? The idiots who grow the stuff. They didn't want competition, they didn't want free market forces making the process more efficient, and obviously, they didn't want to pay taxes. They decided they would rather see their consumers risk going to jail for the product that they sold than compete fairly, they decided they'd rather risk law enforcement cracking down on them than actually work.
  
  It's not just the sunshine state either. There is a strong effect from the police unions to keep their cash cow going, but that's not the only reason marijuana is illegal. The other major component of that is that the voters themselves won't vote for it. 70% of the country has smoked pot, yet there's no real political pressure to legalize it.
  
  Pot is a key example as to why I say "Giving them more options will merely give them more ways to vote against their own interests."
16. Re:Working within the rules can still work by mcgrew · 2012-03-28 00:49 · Score: 2
  
  That is a problem. The Libbies don't want your loved ones in jail, but they want to dismantle the EPA. The Greenies don't want to incarcerate your loved ones either, but they have their own craziness I can't support. The Constitution party would likely reform copyright in a good way, but they're way too right wing in other areas.
  There are no good choices.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
Copyright vs Education by GoodNewsJimDotCom · 2012-03-26 14:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

If we just did something outrageous and said,"All copyrights expire after 7 years", we'd have a great wealth of free media for the uneducated. We could put K-12-College books on 100$ laptops. Then schools, instead of paying 10,000$ for books for k-12, kids could get a laptop and schools could save 10 grand on each student. Schools keep complaining they're strapped for cash. Well, here is a solution. Not to mention how great it'd be for third world kids with OLPC.

--
God spoke to me
1. Re:Copyright vs Education by Cyberax · 2012-03-26 14:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There are lots and lots of free textbooks. That has never been a problem.
  The problem is to start actually using them.
2. Re:Copyright vs Education by cheater512 · 2012-03-26 14:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There is a massive stigma that if it is free then it can't be any good. Its the 'open' movement's worst problem, whether it is books or software.
3. Re:Copyright vs Education by TheGratefulNet · 2012-03-26 15:21 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  an informed population will not be one that submits to state (and now, corporate) control.
  they don't want an educated population. they REALLY do not.
  that's all I have to say on this subject.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
4. Re:Copyright vs Education by dkleinsc · 2012-03-26 15:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think it's safe to say that the Germans know all about the risks of totalitarianism. Especially those over the age of 25 living in former East Germany. I'd be very very surprised if they'd forgotten that lesson.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
5. Re:Copyright vs Education by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 16:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes, because the publishers make sure the free ones are never picked by major education.
6. Re:Copyright vs Education by Sique · 2012-03-26 18:27 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  No. Not being able to buy a western car, and not being able to fly to a tropic vacation location were enough to overthrow the former GDR. There were three main topics in the 1989 turnover: freedom of travel, west german money, and better environmental protection. They got all three of them, and they like it.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
7. Re:Copyright vs Education by risom · 2012-03-26 20:25 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That means that 80% of the people actually going to elections don't want the communist dictatorship back.
  The "people actually going to elections" part ist not to be underestimated - in the states of former eastern Germany voter turnout is hovering at about 50%, sometimes even lower. So 80% of the voting people are actually 40% of the people giving their vote - and therefore the minority :)
  
  I also doubt that people want the "communist dictatorship" back, what they probably do want are things like not having to fear about their economic future, no fear of not being able to afford healthcare for their kids, not being discriminated as a woman, being able to sleep without worries about their idiot boss, not having to work their asses off for an oligarchy of multi millionaires etc. I assume they would be pretty happy to archive that without the dictatorship part.
  To put it differently: people voting for the center-right parties (Greens, SPD, CDU) sure as hell are not happy with "capitalist democracy" along with the accompanying ills like the economic crisis, dwindling retirement pensions etc.
  
  It sure is easy to write off the fond memories of people from Eastern Germany as results of brainwashing. But first, the same argument works for western Germany, too, and second do platitudes like this seldom help to get nearer to the true nature of things.
8. Re:Copyright vs Education by bfandreas · 2012-03-26 20:45 · Score: 2
  
  ...there still is a lot of nostalgia going on. And a few things Eastern Germany produced/had are sorely missed. While each child was guaranteed to get a spot in kindergarden(which, frankly, were the expected paedagogic trainwreck) it took the unified Germany 20 years to implement that.
  
  The people who harbour nostalgia for that regime do so with rose-tinted glasses and from personal experience which wasn't neccessarily bad. If you behaved and accepted you supposedly could have a nice life. I on the other hand have been to the archives containing the steaming slimy paper trail of mindless cruelty, indifference, red tape and cynicism(all for the greater good of all, of course...well, most). I can tell you that you do not want to know what happend if you caught the attention of the powers that be.
  
  The urge to vomit drives tears to my eyes.
  
  On a personal level, the East had a very popular children's TV programme that aired early in the evening. It was also popular in the West(if you could) get it. I loved watching it as a kid. 15 years later I learned that the wife of the last head of state(may he rot in his grave) was heavily involved in the programming. If there was shortage of some goods then they weren't allowed to show it. If there was abundance of others then they should show that in a feast.
  
  A totalitarian regime leaves NOTHING untainted.
  
  The urge to vomit still drives tears to the eyes.
  
  --
  20 minutes into the future
9. Re:Copyright vs Education by Sarten-X · 2012-03-27 03:55 · Score: 2
  
  All of which are incredibly hard to promote to people who are used to paying for things. Sure, nerds like us understand the technical qualities of free solutions, and accept them, but we aren't the majority. Managers want somebody to call 24/7 for tech support, and someone to blame when things break. Downloading an operating system from some random mirror in another country then purchasing support from a completely separate entity just doesn't make sense to traditional business folks.
  Remember the push against Wikipedia when it first came out? It took several years and many studies of accuracy to find that it's just as good as any other encyclopedia, and teachers still often won't accept it.
  Try telling a potential employer at an interview that though your degree is in liberal arts, you learned engineering from Khan Academy. I doubt you'll get too far with it.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Opinions on the Pirate Party by Lotana · 2012-03-26 14:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

We bound to have some German slashdoters here, so it would be good to have a first hand opinions on them:
- What is your opinion on the party?
- On what issues do you agree with them and which do you disagree?
- Do you think that they will be able to affect the policies or are they an ineffective tongue-in-cheek gesture?
- What do you see will be the biggest challenge for them in the future?
1. Re:Opinions on the Pirate Party by Internetuser1248 · 2012-03-26 15:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I am not German but I have been a resident in Berlin for several years and follow politics closer than many.
  
  -They are a breath of fresh air in a stale bureaucratic system
  
  -All of the ones I have heard their position on (yes I read their party manifesto)
  
  -This one is hard to answer, time will tell. I do think that merely by being there they influence the frame of public debate slightly.
  
  -Not going stale and becoming just another brick in the wall. German bureaucracy is pretty soul crushing sometimes
2. Re:Opinions on the Pirate Party by abridgedslashdotuser · 2012-03-26 16:59 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  A small warning for American readers, some views of mine will contradict what you believe is right and wrong, we have public health care here (i think this is how it should be) and other things you don't like so don't get too upset and also what i consider liberal could be something other then what you do. And my also my view of things can differ from the views other Germans have.
  
  - What is your opinion on the party?
  Germany needs a liberal party and not a neoliberal party in my opinion, so i think the pirates can be a win for the political landscape. There is/was a other liberal party the FDP who just got voted out of the parliament there in Saarland and they are also Germany wide in big trouble not only because the pirates but also because their economic liberalism isn't liked by the people in here anymore. People rights and opposing the rise of government surveillance where just a small fig-leaf in the end they didn't really deliver and right after the last federal election they made a big mistake on focusing on some tax cuts for the hotel lobby. That upset many people because if the rich pay lesser taxes then the rest has to pay more or the government has to cut spending and in the end this will result in a big decrease of the living standard here because a working government is better than a not working one and money is needed for that. The FDP then did cut some spending in our health system and the people got even angrier with them but they didn't listen and now they are at there dawn and i think the pirates are on the rise if they stick to their main program of more transparency, less government surveillance and if they don't try to cut the social safety net.
  
  - On what issues do you agree with them and which do you disagree?
  The pirates and there are a lot of issues the don't cover so it's hard to point out thing i truly disagree but if i think if they just focus on freedom and don't on social justice then in the long-view the freedom part can not be full-filled in my opinion. A party who cuts taxes for the rich and then also cuts government spending on social security is, in my opinion not liberal, because then Germany would be in a state as bad as England or the USA are now and no German citizen in their right mind would really want that. So if the would try to copy the business policies of the FDP than they won't ever get my vote. But the points that led to the founding of the German pirate party, which i had already had some listed above, these are the things (more government transparency, less government surveillance, no internet censorship, and a fairer copyright and patent law) i can agree with.
  
  - Do you think that they will be able to affect the policies or are they an ineffective tongue-in-cheek gesture?
  The funny thing is that even just by "jumping" over the 5% threshold and now having seats in two state parliaments (Berlin and Saarland) has the other parties in uproar and could lead to some opinion changes. How they behave in a coalition with other parties has yet to be seen. The theory how this could play out is one thing but how it will play out is the other. They got many votes from people who don't want to vote for the other five big pirates anymore, so if they now or some time in the future screw this up, this could be a blow to democracy here. Because if people get the feeling of powerlessness it could lead to more radicalism (left and or right).
  
  - What do you see will be the biggest challenge for them in the future?
  This year there will be many elections in other and bigger Federal states and the challenge for them is the same as in Berlin and Saarland, they have to get in the Parliament by "jumping" over the 5% threshold which is also their goal for the upcoming federal elections in 2013. And another challenge will be their increasing attention to the media here and also how the other parties will now react, now that they have seen that the pirates could possibly more than a one hit wonder.
3. Re:Opinions on the Pirate Party by bickerdyke · 2012-03-26 21:59 · Score: 2
  
  I'm a german /.er
  In my opinion, a party without a fixed policy is the best thing that can happen to parliamentarism over here, because this means debates would get their whole reason d'être back: convincing the members of parliament to vote for or agains something, based on arguments.
  Currently, we're paying 625 people to raise there hands based on party policy instead of personal beliefs and opinions. Predictable as it is, it's a waste of time and money.
  The biggest challange for the PP is their lack of a party policy, that renders them too unpredictable for the average voter.
  
  --
  bickerdyke
Re:Better: Some new "Pro-Electric Vehicle Party" w by poetmatt · 2012-03-26 14:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

don't underestimate the destruction caused by patents, copyright, etc. The damage to our culture has barely begun to show - while it's not direct, our culture is being less and less documented as a result.
Patents around green products can affect the life on earth issue, and patents on medicine cost actual lives (and money).
Ugh by Formalin · 2012-03-26 14:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm so jealous of proportional representation. Here 7% of the vote would get you 0% of the seats, barring some sort of miracle - like all of your votes being concentrated, instead of low level throughout the popular vote.
This makes it pretty difficult for new ideas to get out there... If large party A, B (or sometimes even C!) won't buy your idea, it's not getting represented.
1. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 14:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I'm so jealous of proportional representation. Here 7% of the vote would get you 0% of the seats, barring some sort of miracle - like all of your votes being concentrated, instead of low level throughout the popular vote.
  This makes it pretty difficult for new ideas to get out there... If large party A, B (or sometimes even C!) won't buy your idea, it's not getting represented.
  This is why America desperately needs a 3rd party. This two party system we currently have does not come close to representing the voice of many Americans.
2. Re:Ugh by MachDelta · 2012-03-26 15:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  One problem with any kind of proportional system (hybrid or otherwise) is that you always end up with members whom the public has not elected directly. They can be whatever lunatic attack dog the party wants to appoint (or vote internally). Unlike a plurality system, you can't really vote those idiots out.
  The biggest problem with democracy is that it promises far more than any practical solution will ever deliver. There is no perfect system.
3. Re:Ugh by dkleinsc · 2012-03-26 15:23 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I think what you're referring to is the Free State Project, which is a libertarian effort to implement their ideas in New Hampshire.
  It hasn't fallen apart, really - they moved to NH and elected a bunch of state reps (not that difficult, since each represents about 4500 people). They then discovered very quickly that many of their ideas had already been adopted, and received a pretty warm reception from the established political leadership. Anyone who joined up gearing for a political fight would have been a bit surprised to find that instead of a fight they basically got handshakes and smiles.
  This was partially possible because New Hampshire has an incredibly responsive and functional state government, and a strong tradition of believing in democracy more than in partisanship. That means, for instance, that the Secretary of State has stayed in his appointed office for a couple of decades, despite several changes in the party affiliation of the governor, because he's very good at his job and treats people fairly.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
4. Re:Ugh by dkleinsc · 2012-03-26 15:29 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  There is no perfect system.
  Obligatory reference to the Arrow Impossibility Theorem.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
5. Re:Ugh by robmcdiarmid · 2012-03-26 15:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There's no reason why you couldn't design a proportional system that forced each party to pre-post an ordered list of candidates. That way, you'd know exactly whom you would get for each percentage chunk that resulted in another representative from that party. And, if a specific individual within a given party is causing more people to not vote for the party than to vote for it, it's in the party's best interest to dump them, or at least put them lower on the candidate list.
6. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 15:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  First past the post. "Throwing your vote away". "Letting the worse of two evils win by wasting your vote".
7. Re:Ugh by c0lo · 2012-03-26 15:59 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  First past the post. "Throwing your vote away". "Letting the worse of two evils win by wasting your vote".
  Ah... I see... "stuck in local optimum" when better optimum points exists.
  Hmmm... I'd recommend a "reheating the system in simulated annealing", but I feel that the things should go much worse for such a thing to happen.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
8. Re:Ugh by The+Snowman · 2012-03-26 16:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And what exactly is stopping the 3rd party to arise?
  First past the post voting, for one. Instant runoff would be a huge help to get even a small number of non R or D candidates into offices that matter. Second, proportional representation.
  But the real thing preventing a viable third party is the first two parties. They are the ones in government, they are the ones that passed laws in every state (e.g ballot access restrictions, electoral votes being winner take all) making it extremely difficult to get elected if you don't have an R or D after your name.
  
  --
  24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
9. Re:Ugh by maweki · 2012-03-26 16:15 · Score: 2
  
  This is why, in Germany, we don't actually vote for a party but for a list supplied by the party. This list has to be openly available and 5 or 6 candidates are named on the ballot as an example.
  Don't like the guy? Don't vote for the list he is on. If you still like the politics of his list/party, then why do you care if he is an a-hole?
10. Re:Ugh by maweki · 2012-03-26 16:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Funnily enough, this is almost exactly how it works in Germany. There is a pre-ordered and published list but we have a mixed system where you can vote for your district's candidate directly and the guy or girl who wins a district overrides his position (if placed) in the list. But the list/party-vote guarantees that the party is at least that represented.
  And if there are more candidates that won directly than the percentage would allow for (in terms of representation), we add seats to the parliament in order for every directly elected representative to have his place.
11. Re:Ugh by nedlohs · 2012-03-26 16:34 · Score: 2
  
  How so?
  When I vote in elections using a proportional system I rank individual candidates. If I don't like Bob Smith from party X I can put him last even if I put John Jones from party X first.
12. Re:Ugh by orzetto · 2012-03-26 18:36 · Score: 2
  
  Uh uh no no, it does not turn out that way in practice. We have the system you describe in Italy and it's really rotten.
  The result is that several parties put unpopular, but powerful candidates high in the lists so they are guaranteed a place in parliament. These are often crooked politicians, plain simpletons, or even mafiosi like Nick Cosentino. The parties run the campaign promoting their logo, ideology or possibly the presentable candidates in their list (who are sitting so low that they do not stand a chance to be elected anyway). People are mostly dumb and do not notice.
  Why having mafiosi in parliament? They get immunity (like the above mentioned Nick Cosentino did, he should be sitting in prison for several counts of mafia), and you get a lot of evil karma with their friends. Why simpletons? They are incapable of independent thought, and they will simply obey party leaders. It's party leaders, after all, who decide on their career, not voters.
  I know this system works in countries such as Germany and Norway. To work, the system requires parties that are not just pretending to fight, but that actually oppose each other. In the US, I think you would get a situation more similar to Italy than Germany, with e.g. Dick Cheney having a permanent seat in Congress and steering the GOP as if it was his thing, and some just as crooked democrat on the other side.
  What is necessary is to take power from the hands of party leaders and give it to the people. The parties may present a list, but citizens must be able to choose which candidate to vote, and whether someone is voted in or not must not depend on the position on the ballot list but only on the received votes.
  
  --
  Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
Re:"pariament" by tepples · 2012-03-26 14:53 · Score: 2

Typo for "parliament", a term for an elected legislative body in which the executive branch is answerable to the legislature.
Re:Better: Some new "Pro-Electric Vehicle Party" w by abridgedslashdotuser · 2012-03-26 14:57 · Score: 5, Informative

Frankly, I'd prefer to see some issue-specific "Green" party get in: Eg, the Subj ones.
They have a green party in Germany and they are also just got voted in and will be sitting "right beside" the "pirates" in the state parliament after this election there in Saarland.

There are, after all, some more critical (eg, to life on Earth) issues to be solved here.
A party who opposes censorship, data retention and supports more government transparency is also needed and these issues do matter there, because the "pirates" got 7,4 % of the votes in Saarland so their program is more supported then that of the green party who barely got over the 5 percent threshold with their 5,0 %. I think you just said something without knowing the political situation there, or am i wrong?
But besides all these things got me wondering... in Germany even new and small parties have a chance to get into parliaments and now there are six different bigger parties (cdu/csu, spd, the green party, the left party and now the pirate party) and many more small parties there to chose from, but in the us they just got stuck with two, why? I don't get it where is the democracy in that?
Hyperlinking by mikethicke · 2012-03-26 16:12 · Score: 4, Informative

It seems to be a fairly common problem on Slashdot that posts are poorly hyperlinked. There are two key pieces of information here: (1) The party received 4 seats and (2) the party can no longer be considered a "single issue" party. The second two hyperlinks (7.4% and 4 out of 51 seats) are related to (1), but there is no hyperlink for (2). If a reader wants to know where (2) comes from, they have to randomly click the links to find that it comes from the pcworld.com link (7.4%). This is just annoying.
Re:One of the corners of the world, fixed. by the_other_chewey · 2012-03-26 17:49 · Score: 4, Informative

My stepbrother was born in Kaiserslautern, so he technically has German citizenship.
Only if he has a German parent, or in some specific cases is of German descent.
Germany doesn't have "ius soli":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nationality_law
Social Justice by Arancaytar · 2012-03-26 17:52 · Score: 2

A survey found 40% of Pirate voters naming "Social Justice" as the most significant issue, even though the Pirates didn't exactly campaign on this in the state (though their platform on the federal level includes it).
1. Re:Social Justice by Kohlrabi82 · 2012-03-26 19:31 · Score: 2
  
  This adds to my impression that many, many voters just voted for them because they are fed up with the old parties and system. It may very well be that these voters will leave for greener pastures in the future, causing the PP to fall below 5% again (meaning they won't get seats in state elections). Also, a good percentage of the voters are previous FDP (liberals) voters. The FDP had two positions in the past, neo-liberalism with open markets and freedom for the financial sector, and civil rights. They nearly completely expunged the latter from their party over the years (apart from the national minister Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger), and now they are paying for it: They are part of the national government, but didn't even get 2% of the votes in the Saarland. Most analysts assume that the voters left for the other bigger parties and the PP.
2. Re:Social Justice by bfandreas · 2012-03-26 21:25 · Score: 2
  
  The social justice issue may also manifest in the average age of you garden variety pirate. They have most of their lives ahead of them and are not way past their prime. So voting for young people in the hope they will look out for young people is not that far fetched, actually.
  
  If the FDP kicked out all Foreign Secretaries who don't speak Ze Englisch, get rid of people of so interchangeable qualification that they can take care of our health system AND our economy and all the other people who weren't considerate enough to jump out of an aeroplane with a dodgy chute then they would actually be electable. The tragic thing is Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger has been the last true liberal in the FDP for decades. Her record for the last 20 years is spotless. If there is a voice of reason in this country then it is hers. Somehow the curse of Otto Graf Lambsdorff didn't affect her. An honest politician with a conscience. Who'd have thunk it?
  
  I reckon quite a few pirates do admire her.
  
  --
  20 minutes into the future
Re:Better: Some new "Pro-Electric Vehicle Party" w by bfandreas · 2012-03-26 19:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

...also all of these parties have a lot of overlap.
Any combination of parties starting a coalition with another has already been tried. Amazingly most seemed to be functional.

This is why a new party like the PP doesn't NEED a party stance on everything. Besides, parliamentarians can and should have their own conscience and vote along those lines. The PP doesn't need a consensus on EU milk quotas, the recession(there is none in Germany at the moment) and other issues. The Green Party started like that and became a party with a complete programme within two decades.

There are safeguards against fragmentation. You need at least some percentage to actually get a seat in parliament. Most commonly that's 5%. That keeps the kooks out.

Also if a big enough portion of your population votes for a party that doesn't make it into government then government still has to take their needs into account. Otherwise you don't have a democracy but a dictatorship of the majority. Which never is a good thing.

--
20 minutes into the future
Re:Better: Some new "Pro-Electric Vehicle Party" w by Asic+Eng · 2012-03-26 22:12 · Score: 2

The Green party is well established in Germany anyway. They actually took a beating in Saarland this time, but they are running the state of Baden-WÃ¼rttemberg with the SPD as their junior partners and they are participating in several other state governments.
I think the PP is an important addition - I agree that green issues are vital, but we also need to protect the foundation of our democratic system, otherwise we have no chance of addressing these issues. The main problem with stuff like ACTA etc is not even the content of the treaty (though it's bad enough) but that the route taken to implement it, basically subverts democratic control. That needs to be stopped urgently.