2014 General Election
The date for the 2014 general election has been set for 20 September. This is about 6 months from now, and we need to make some decisions:
- How we are going to get the Party registered with the Electoral Commission?
- How we are going to approve electorate candidates?
- How are we going to decide our party list rankings?
- What is our overall election strategy?
Danyl Strype Tue 1 Apr 2014 5:24AM
I agree with @andrewreitemeyer that we need to focus what energy we have on building local organisations around campaigns for electorate candidates, and using this to grow our membership.
At this stage, I don't think there's any point putting forward a party list. The most likely outcome is that we would get an embarrassingly small vote, because most people who would consider voting for us will vote for the Internet Party instead. In the unlikely event we did get a decent vote (1-2%), IP voters would be grumpy with us for splitting the geek vote, especially if the IP fell just short of 5%. In other words, we're nowhere near organised enough to put on a decent campaign for the Party vote, and we'd only alienated potential supporters if we tried.
After this election, we can start planning for 2017, including figuring out where we stand in relation to the IP, and talking to other micro-parties about potential co-operation.
Poll Created Mon 7 Apr 2014 11:50AM
We do *not* campaign for the party vote in 2014 Closed Sat 19 Apr 2014 12:58PM
Opinion was strongly divided, perhaps because of the negative wording, proposing not to do.
There's been some expressions of support and no objections to the idea that we do not put forward a party list, or campaign for the party vote in 2014. Just want to make sure everyone agrees with this.
|Results||Option||% of points||Voters|
|Undecided||0%||33||TF KT CM M MJS DU|
9 of 42 people have voted (21%)
Mon 7 Apr 2014 12:09PM
No point creating work and costs for ourselves when there is another tech party with better resources to campaign for the party vote. Let's focus our energy on electorate candidates.
Mon 7 Apr 2014 6:31PM
I have no enthusiasm for campaigning for a Party that is basically dysfunctional. I would much rather put my energy into setting up autonomous local parties that are at least internally democratic.
Thu 10 Apr 2014 2:41AM
The actual state of the active membership doesn't allow for running a party.
Sat 12 Apr 2014 9:00AM
This would have been a disagree, but if the current state of the party doesn't allow for running...
Sun 13 Apr 2014 8:59AM
I think this depends on the upcoming mana.com party implosion, which might be too late for this election cycle.
That said, I will welcome the campaign in 2017.
Tue 15 Apr 2014 9:56PM
I suggest to stop the discussion here until we get some numbers and serious input from the board. At that point I will return to a more productive position than blocking again.
Wed 16 Apr 2014 2:39AM
As much as I hate the idea of another election without the Pirate Party on the list as an option, I agree with the arguments put forward for not jumping in just yet. Until there's some clearer internal participation and numbers, we should stay out.
Thu 17 Apr 2014 9:31PM
I still expect to get some numbers and serious input from the board!
Fri 18 Apr 2014 4:16AM
The proposal, as written, would block the party from putting forth a list if circumstances change for the better. Since I have to vote irt the proposal as it is written then I must say "no" to this.
Danyl Strype Mon 7 Apr 2014 12:07PM
So, I think there is general agreement that local chapters, where they exist, should have the final say on candidates in their electorate, but that currently only applies to Wellington. Is there anyone who is keen to run as a Pirate candidate elsewhere in the country?
I will talk to Abe about Dunedin North, although he might be running for the Cannabis Party. I'm considering running myself.
Rob Ueberfeldt Mon 7 Apr 2014 11:02PM
I saw an email saying we are gaining members at a rapid rate. If we have the numbers I say we should run as party.
Danyl Strype Tue 8 Apr 2014 1:51AM
With what objectives @robueberfeldt ? Could you and @davidpeterson please explain what you disagree with in my comment above about the likely outcome?
Rob Ueberfeldt Tue 8 Apr 2014 9:12AM
I would like an estimate of our membership numbers before I answer that. If our membership increases quickly enough for us to register over the next couple of weeks then I would take that as sign.
David Peterson Tue 8 Apr 2014 10:59AM
@strypey , seems you are mixing up what you see as a likely outcome with what should be a goal. This don't have to be the same thing. (arguably they should never be)
Danyl Strype Tue 8 Apr 2014 4:56PM
Running candidates would achieve the goal of giving more people experience with both being candidates and working in campaign teams. It would organically build our organisational structure at the same time as building membership.
Let's say we had 500 members now. What would be the goal of campaigning for the party vote which even @davidpeterson acknowledges we won't get, alienating potential supporters who have got behind the IP, and worst case scenario, stopping a party who support all our policies (copyright reform, surveillance, open government, digital education etc) getting to 5%? How can we win more than we lost on this?
Rob Ueberfeldt Wed 9 Apr 2014 7:03AM
I still need to know what our membership is 'doing' if we just managed 500 and going static or 500 and climbing. If their is interest in the party then I would like to run, IP isn't any reason not to run. I too am thinking of the long term and if we can set up now as brand then when IP implodes or not we are set to go. Either way we need a PP in NZ if not this election then next. IP is no long term replacement to what we are offering.
Hubat McJuhes Thu 10 Apr 2014 2:41AM
If there is such a thing as climbing numbers in membership as @robueberfeldt suggests, then I would like to know about that phenomenon as well.
But what counts for the question at hand, I would think, is the state of the active membership, and that is about a dozen and more like declining then inclining. Not good enough for running a party.
Danyl Strype Sat 12 Apr 2014 7:49AM
@robueberfeldt I agree, we need to build awareness of the Pirate Party, which is why I support running electorate candidates. I also agree with @hubatmcjuhes though, we don’t have the numbers to run a decent party vote campaign, and what resources we do have would be better spent on well organised electorate campaigns.
The IP launch is a reason not to try to launch the Pirates this election. If we had run a party list in 2011, or if we had a solid team of people working on preparations for a party vote campaign over the last two years, things would be different. We would already be well established, and we could probably have pulled a significant chunk of the activists and members who have joined the IP into the Pirates.
The hard facts are, as @hubatmcjuhes says, we are a party of about a dozen activists, with around 200 members, and no money. The IP has thousands of members, and a sizeable war chest. If we try to compete with them under these conditions, we will be a laughing stock. It’s like the Cannabis Party trying to compete with the Greens for all these elections. We’d be Scrappy Doo!
Adam Bullen Sat 12 Apr 2014 8:57AM
With the IP looking like they are going with Mana....I think that a lot of people will be turned off by this that may have voted for them.
Peter Ajamian Sat 12 Apr 2014 10:37AM
First off, this whole discussion is moot if we can't get members to register.
That said, if we by some miracle do get 500 registered members and can register the party then by all means I think we should run a party list. I don't buy the argument that we'll split the vote for the Internet party, in my opinion that's a good thing for us, not a bad thing, if we get registered and put in a list then it may open the door to negotiations with the IP as I do think their core values are the same as ours and splitting the vote isn't something they would want to do either.
Hubat McJuhes Sat 12 Apr 2014 1:53PM
Please, @davidpeterson, can you explain how we could possibly turn things around in time?
Hubat McJuhes Sat 12 Apr 2014 2:00PM
@peterajamian While I understand that the IP is not exactly identical with Kim Schmitz, and this opens the grounds for potential congruency in places, I still waiting for anything emerging from them that meets the high standards of our principles.
I also have to admit that the current state of PPNZ is probably equally far from satisfying those standards, but I do believe (and pray) this is only temporarily.
Peter Ajamian Sat 12 Apr 2014 9:14PM
@hubatmcjuhes I agree. What I'm saying I guess is that we are similar enough to the IP to be splitting their vote, but not close enough to want to run off to them and abandon our own attempts at running a list. As we stand now we are a joke to them and they really wont' pay attention to us for anything so we have no chance of shapign that party that is taking over and being much more successful at running what is mostly our own positions. If we were to get our 500 then we become a threat to the IP due to the possibility of splitting th evote, no matter how small and that means that we can get them to the bargaining table to help shape that party to become something better and maybe even something we can support.
Rob Ueberfeldt Sat 12 Apr 2014 9:39PM
If our party numbers are around 200 then I don't see much hope of us becoming registered. If we can register then I would give consideration to running a list.
Hubat McJuhes Sun 13 Apr 2014 3:45AM
Dear @peter and @rob, I really wholeheartedly disagree with you. Even if we had 5000 formal members right now we should NOT consider running for election as long as we are still only 17 registered at loomio with a maximum of 8 ever expressing their thoughts.
Danyl Strype Mon 14 Apr 2014 1:42PM
we are similar enough to the IP to be splitting their vote, but not close enough to want to run off to them and abandon our own attempts at running a list.
This is a strawman. Nobody has argued that the Pirates should dissolve and merge into the IP (although if individual members/ activists decide to get behind them for this election, that's their call). What has been argued is:
a) you only get one shot at running a party list for the first time. Whether or not this is done right can determine whether a party has a future, or will disappear without a trace after their first outing.
b) the Pirates are not in a strong position in terms of funds or active support to run a good party vote campaign anyway, and we can't even count on the protest vote we might have got even with no effort, because most of it will go to the IP, or to Act (which is where most of our previous and potentials activists and organisers have gone).
c) rather than squandering this one-off opportunity, in a vain attempt to be a "threat" to the IP, we are better to save it for 2017
d) energy and cash which would be spread super-thin across the country in a party vote campaign could instead be focused on a dozen or so electorate candidates, who can represent the party well, and build our active membership through actually doing something in-person
I am interested in running as a Pirate candidate here in Dunedin North, but not if the party makes what I see as a strategically suicidal decision to run a party list, for the reasons given above. Is anyone else in this discussion considering a candidacy? If so, how do you feel about this?
@kirktwist @brucekingsbury @terryjones @andrewreitemeyer others?
Andrew Reitemeyer Mon 14 Apr 2014 7:19PM
I would not consider running as a PPNZ candidate unless the party reforms itself and becomes functional and above all democratic. As only the board has the power to do anything about it,
I am not hopeful before elections for board seats are held.
Does anyone know when the next elections are due?
Peter Ajamian Mon 14 Apr 2014 8:39PM
@strypey Cash is not a real barrier, if we do manage to get our 500 registered memebers and get a list out we actually get a significant amount of money with which to run our campaign (if we apply for it properly).
The process of getting 500 members should also get more support where we need it.
All of this is, of course assuming we even can get the membership to 500 in time, which I highly doubt, so this really is all a moot point anyways.
I'm not saying we would have to dissolve and all run off to the IP, I'm saying that a possible merger with the IP is one possible course of action to take and one we shouldn't dismiss lightly, after all their positions are very similar to ours. Alternatively, "giving our votes" to the IP in exchange for some say in helping to sway their policy is another possible course of action, often times having two parties work together is a way to gain more seats if one party pulls electoral seats and the other party seats then the4 electoral seats do not count towards the number of party seats. Having this type of relationship with the IP is not beyond reason, imo.
Danyl Strype Tue 15 Apr 2014 5:01AM
We need to be clear that a formal relationship with between the Pirates and the IP will not happen (at least not for this election), for two reasons:
* KDC is facing extradition on charges of "internet piracy" and cannot publicly associate himself with anything called "Pirate"
* a lot of Pirates distrust KDC and his motives, including some of our own local activists, and people in PP International
However, what I propose is, in practice, very similar to what @peterajamian is proposing:
“giving our votes” to the IP in exchange for some say in helping to sway their policy is another possible course of action, often times having two parties work together is a way to gain more seats if one party pulls electoral seats and the other party seats then the electoral seats do not count towards the number of party seats.
Let's be realistic though, whatever we do, we have zero chance of having an MP after this election. Running electorate candidates would be a tactic to build public awareness of our existence and our principles, and build the organisational capacity of local campaign teams, and recruit new members, so we are in a better position in 2017.
We don't need to formally endorse the IP or any other party (although we could), but it would be helpful to our cause to publicize an analysis of the various party's policies as they compare to ours, and even rank them.
I agree we could talk policy with the the IP (and maybe other smaller parties; Greens? ACT?). As I've said elsewhere, I think trying to attack them will only hurt us, not them. If we decide to challenge them in public on a point of principle, we need to do it as allies, not competitors.
Peter Ajamian Tue 15 Apr 2014 5:57AM
Well, another thing to consider is that if we can qualify (and as I said before) running list candidates gives us access to a lot of extra funding (somewhere around $20,000 iirc). Even if we only run a single list candidate and just use the funding to help our electoral candidates it's worth it, imo.
The point about relating to the IP is that it's going to be very hard to work with them (or for them to take us seriously) if we're not at least registered and have the ability to run a list. Having that ability could even allow us to not run a list in return for some favours (although see what I said about funding above).
Peter Ajamian Tue 15 Apr 2014 5:59AM
Note that I'm actually not certain if we have to run a list or if we just have to be legally registered as a party with our 500 members to get that funding. I'm not even sure if there's a difference in the eyes of the law.
Peter Ajamian Tue 15 Apr 2014 6:04AM
Oh, and yes I know why KDC said he couldn't work with us, you forget I was actually the person he called to cancel our meeting at the time. That was supposed to be a situation that would last only a few months, and now it's something like two years later and instead of getting back to us and working with us again he's turned around and formed his own party without so much as a word.
I have no love lost for KDC, but I do think that given the right circumstances we may still be able to work with his party since we do have very similar (stated) goals.
Hubat McJuhes Tue 15 Apr 2014 9:53PM
@peterajamian, I would like to consider your thoughts, but I can't. Simply because I try to think how talking to the IP would practically work. At our current state, only the board would have the authority to do that. But the board doesn't even bother to talk to US, so how would you get them to talk to someone else?
One would think that this discussion here would be about the core an issue for the board as it can be. But yet, as far as I can see, @davidpeterson is the only one from the board who as been putting in some sort of input. Not much of a guidance, though. A little bit enigmatic, I would say.
You have asked a number of times to get a number for the current membership. But, yet again, only the board could answer that but will just not do so. I am sure that @strypey s estimate of about 200 is much more realistic than >500 and skyrocketing. But still, we are all running around as if there would be some realistic chance to run a party list. @davidpeterson is encouraging this with his vote without providing any reasoning behind it and without any clarification in the numbers.
Let's stop wasting our time here unless the boards engages the discussion.
Hubat McJuhes Tue 15 Apr 2014 9:58PM
I don't even know who all the board members are.
Can someone please post a list of the board members and their role?
And does someone know when they board is to be elected the next time?
Hubat McJuhes Tue 15 Apr 2014 10:13PM
I would like to thank you, @strypey, for seriously considering to take the burden of running as candidate. Please let me know if and how I can help from Wellington.
If someone in and around Wellington would consider the same, please let me know as well, as I can probably be more helpful to a local candidate. @kirktwist, maybe? Anyone?
Danyl Strype Wed 16 Apr 2014 12:40AM
@peterajamian I’ve only been active in the Pirates for about 6 months, and this is the first time I’ve come across you in any Pirate communications, so I assumed were a new member. My apologies for teaching Grandma to suck eggs :)
What I’m trying to explain to you is that the IP have no reason to take us seriously, whether we scrape over 500 and get registered or not. They have serious funding, and after only formally existing for a couple of months, they have thousands of members - more than 500 turned up to KDC’s pool party. The only way we could be taken seriously by the IP is to have two things:
* properly developed policies which are more ambitious than theirs, or cover areas where they don’t have policy
* a much larger membership
Struggling to run a party vote campaign will suck up time and energy that would be much better spent on developing policy. There’s no way we will grow our membership if we are perceived as being in competition with the IP. Why?
As I’ve already said, if we run a list, the best we can do is suck off a tiny sliver of their potential vote. If they ally with Mana, we might get a protest vote from people who normally vote Libz (although they’re just as likely to vote ACT or for a protest vote Cannabis Party).
However, the perception of all those thousands of potential supporters who have joined the IP, would be that we are competing instead of cooperating, and potentially stopping the IP from getting to 5%. We would be seen as a bunch of selfish idiots who put our pet project before the cause. Whether or not this is true, or fair, is not the point. This is how people will see it, and we will wreck our chances of building support for a strong launch in 2017, when the IP thing has blown over, or like the Greens, started drifting towards weak, compromised positions.
Look, as I’ve said already, I wish we were in a position to run a strong campaign in this election, but the truth is that we’re not. As @hubatmcjuhes points out, our elected Board are AWOL in this discussion, except for a couple of brief comments by @davidpeterson (VP) and @andrewmcpherson (Treasurer). Anyone who thinks this is the the sign of an organisation with a committed leadership capable of taking us into a country-scale election campaign is kidding themselves.
Peter Ajamian Wed 16 Apr 2014 1:01AM
@hubatmcjuhes I don't think I ever suggested that we already have 500+ members, nor did I ask for the numbers, I think it's pretty clear that we have far fewer than that and I take @strypey 's estimate of around 200 to be as accurate as anything I could come up with. I did in fact state several times that I think this discussion is moot because it's doubtful we will reach the 500 mark anyways.
That said, the discussion itself assumes that we do reach 500 and so it must be approached from that perspective or the entire discussion is rather pointless. Given that assumption I would say we should go ahead and run a list for the reasons I already stated, the main one at this point being the media funding we would get for doing so.
@strypey to be quite honest I think that any decision along these lines at this stage is premature. If we can pull the party together enough to get 500 members then it is very likely that we will be in a better position to run a campaign at that stage just due to the improvements needed in the party to get to 500 to begin with.
Hubat McJuhes Wed 16 Apr 2014 8:46AM
Right, @peterajamian, I cannot find a reference of you having said that. I guess I have mixed you up with @robueberfeldt in this regard. sorry.
One other piece of information that is essential for my stance here is, that I believe that we have to have the 500 members at the point in time of registration. And that this must be done by end of April.
That's why I think we should stop debating here until the board shows up and instead proceed in the Membership Drive ticket for developing a realistic way forward.
Then we could use this thread to support our actual candidates :-)
Peter Ajamian Wed 16 Apr 2014 9:13AM
@hubatmcjuhes I didn't realize the deadline was so soon. This thread seems even more pointless than before then. Can we actually debate something meaningful instead?
Hubat McJuhes Wed 16 Apr 2014 9:32PM
@peterajamian you may want to change your vote on the current proposal, then.
@robueberfeldt , @davidpeterson , can you please comment on the reasoning of your vote here? We all are keen to know more about an even hypothetical chance to do what you want. You may as well recognise the discussion here and adjust your judgement accordingly.
Peter Ajamian Wed 16 Apr 2014 10:24PM
@hubatmcjuhes well, no. I'm voting against the proposal because I think it should never have been made in the first place. It's largely a moot point and is not something we should really even consider until we get to the point when we can register the party.
Hubat McJuhes Thu 17 Apr 2014 2:30AM
Dear @peterajamian, @strypey has elaborated on the purpose of the proposal. If you like you could rephrase the proposal as something like: 'Am I right that we all want to move on and do something useful?'
There has been some talking going into the direction of not trying to run a party list. This proposal is to make this 'felt agreement' into an open, official, consensual decision.
So the best thing we can do is to all just quickly agree and move on from there.
From everyone who disagrees I expect and argument that can give us an indication as of how much their position is in accordance with reality.
Peter Ajamian Thu 17 Apr 2014 2:52AM
@hubatmcjuhes @strypey I will change my vote if the statement is changed to read that we will focus on other things than putting out a party list. I am fine with saying that it's probably not going to work out so we shouldn't really focus on it now, I am not fine with saying that we are going to take any possibility of it off the table.
Hubat McJuhes Thu 17 Apr 2014 4:33AM
@peter I don't think you can change the proposals text while people are voting on it. That would be rather strange if that text could change and everyone who had put in a vote until that point in time would now find themselves agreeing or disagreeing to something different.
You can explain the implications of your vote in your comment, though. Also the discussion helps to understand the true meaning and intend of a decision made.
Danyl Strype Thu 17 Apr 2014 4:46PM
@petercummuskey sums up my thoughts nicely. The bottom line is that we only have 17 people willing to join the party, and get access to our decision-making forum. We don't even have enough people to fill a party list!
The proposal, as @hubatmcjuhes says, is to move on to a more fruitful discussion about getting electorate candidates funded, registered, and running strong local campaigns. Those who say 'no', or 'block', need to justify why it's worth spending any more time on the party list discussion, or change to 'abstain' if they can't 'agree'.
Peter Ajamian Fri 18 Apr 2014 4:18AM
@strypey @hubatmcjuhes I disagree that one must give a reason to validate their vote. Each perso's vote is their own and no reason should need to be given one way or the other for it.
@strypey if the proposal cannot be changed then neither can my vote. I cannot vote for a proposal that I disagree with in good conscious even if it's later clarified to say that it really means something else. If that's the intent then this proposal should be not be passed and another one created with the correct wording to express the true meaning.
Danyl Strype Sat 19 Apr 2014 3:04AM
Because @peterajamian your vote, based on a romanticized and unrealistic idea of the party's present capacity, and what appears to be total ignorance of political strategy, is blocking us from moving on to a more fruitful discussion about something we actually have the capacity to do: run strong electorate campaigns.
If you're going to block our progress, I think you are obliged to explain why, rather than just saying 'disagree', then sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "na na na" as @davidpeterson is so fond of doing.
Peter Ajamian Sat 19 Apr 2014 11:30AM
@strypey Sorry, my vote stands. The fact that you seem to think that you can peer pressure me into changing it just makes me more determined not to. That fact that you are trying, quite frankly, scares me. Such tactics have no place in a democracy. As for why I'm voting no, I've already given several good reasons, you are welcome to take them as you will (obviously, you seem to think that you can dismiss them as "ignorant", so be it).
Danyl Strype Sat 19 Apr 2014 11:54AM
@peterajamian I'm not interested in whether or not you change you position on this proposal. I'm trying to understand why you are taking this position, but ok, “na, na, na” it is then. Noted.
David Peterson Sat 19 Apr 2014 12:18PM
I find this whole discussion rather odd. As yes, it is quite probable we will not be running a list this election, but to leap from realising that to then actively advocating we pass a resolution that we do not campaign for the party vote??? Is a weird unconnected leap that just makes no sense to me.
If we could campaign for the party vote then we absolutely ought to do that and not let it go to waste. The only reason I've put down "disagree" rather than "block" is because if somehow this does pass into effect, it is likely to do only minimal damage due to the chances of us being able to run a list anyway.
David Peterson Sat 19 Apr 2014 12:24PM
The proposal, as @hubatmcjuhes says, is to move on to a more fruitful discussion about getting electorate candidates funded, registered, and running strong local campaigns.
@strypey move on??? This proposal does quite the opposite!!
It has generated a huge amount of discussion on a point which is actually quite pointless (as it is likely whatever the outcome of this is, it will have close to zero impact in practise.).
All this time, words, and energy could've been much more productively spent in other areas (such as finding and selecting candidates, like you said). I think the marmite proposal was more helpful to PPNZ than this. At least that one was obviously and intentionally pointless (though I still reckon it wasn't such a great idea either).
Danyl Strype Sat 19 Apr 2014 12:42PM
@davidpeterson, great to see you participating. I think this proposal is important because:
- there are strategic reasons for not running a party list, which should at least be aired and considered
- since the whole membership will be expected to run a party vote campaign as volunteers, it is a decision we should make collectively, not by the Board behind closed doors.
Also because anyone who is thinking about running as an electorate candidate would have to defend the decision to run a list, to potential supporters who are currently getting behind the IP, this decision will affect whether or not some people decide to be Pirate candidates.
I’m interested, would those who have disagreed with this proposal as written have found it easier to agree if I’d proposed that “we put our time and energy (and cash) into electorate candidate campaigns and start building now towards a strong party vote campaign in 2017”?
David Peterson Sat 19 Apr 2014 12:53PM
That would've been a much more positive way to have phrased it, instead of the negativity/absolutism of this one, but still is in my opinion unnecessarily pointless. Like voting on if it will be a sunny day tomorrow, but even less useful.
Peter Ajamian Sat 19 Apr 2014 12:53PM
@davidpeterson ++ You took the words out of my mouth.
I’m interested, would those who have disagreed with this proposal as written have found it easier to agree if I’d proposed that “we put our time and energy (and cash) into electorate candidate campaigns and start building now towards a strong party vote campaign in 2017”?
Yes, I would find that much easier to agree with, or at the very least abstain instead of disagree.
Poll Created Sat 19 Apr 2014 1:01PM
Focus our resources on electorate candidates and start building *now* for 2017 Closed Tue 22 Apr 2014 12:08PM
There appears to be agreement to focus on electorate campaigns for 2014, although some members want to leave the garden gate open for running a party list campaign if new information or opportunities come up, or the situation otherwise changes.
I propose we focus our time and energy (and cash) into electorate candidate campaigns for 2014, and start building now towards launching a strong party vote campaign in 2017.
|Results||Option||% of points||Voters|
|Undecided||0%||34||TF KT CM M MJS DU|
8 of 42 people have voted (19%)
Sat 19 Apr 2014 1:02PM
We need to move on from discussing a theoretical party vote campaign this year which we're not ready for, and focus on the logistics of getting strong electorate campaigns underway.
Sat 19 Apr 2014 1:05PM
With the minor caveat that if things change dramatically (they won't) we may want to revisit this proposal.
Hubat McJuhes Thu 24 Apr 2014 9:09AM
@peterajamian I disagree that one must give a reason to validate their vote. Each perso’s vote is their own and no reason should need to be given one way or the other for it.
I strongly object!
While it is necessary that,in an election where you hand over your voice to a delegate or party and are silenced for the term, this vote must be done anonymously, hence without justification, to protect the voters from sanctions, this reasoning doesn't apply here.
The vote on the right hand side of this discussion ideally represents the conclusion of the discussion in this column. It's actually not a vote - it is the expression of your stance! You are not handing over your voice - you are quite contrary raising your voice here!
Don't get me wrong: It is surely all right to simply drop your vote without participating in the discussion and without commenting your vote. This can be read as: 'I have recognised the discussion and the arguments of the side I have voted for has convinced me with the arguments they came up with'. I have no problem with that.
The problem arises where the poll reveals a lack of consensus, but one side completely refuses to provide any arguments for their stance and as well doesn't bother to comment on any valid argument of the other side.
What we aim for as a party is: to be convincing with our evidence based policies. We cannot do that if we don't even try to convince ourselves and test and challenge our good arguments amongst ourselves first. We want hardened decisions that went through fire and water before we present them to the outside world. This requires to bring on arguments, sharp like raiser blades, pointy like needle tips, heavy as in lead.
Opinions are as good as the arguments they are a conclusion of. An opinion without an argument is worth exactly nothing. Our decisions must not be opinion polls.
Hubat McJuhes Thu 24 Apr 2014 9:27AM
@davidpeterson As you are a board member and therefor should have the information I kindly ask you to answer the following questions. If you don't know the answer to one or more of them, I would kindly ask you to make sure that a person that does know the answer provides that piece of information.
1) How many members are required to register a party list for election?
2) How many members that fulfill the requirements to count against the registration limit does the party currently have?
3) What is the trend in membership numbers?
4) What is the deadline for registration?
This data will enable us all to make an informed decision. Something that I feel deprived of.
Danyl Strype Thu 24 Apr 2014 12:16PM
Just to clarify, @andrewmcpherson is also a Board member (Treasurer), and technically so is @robueberfeldt (officially Communications Manager until an election is held to replace him, with @brucekingsbury acting in his place).
Rob Ueberfeldt Thu 24 Apr 2014 11:10PM
I have repeatedly tendered my resignation. To make this clear I am not the communications officer officially or otherwise, currently the position is vacant. BTW if anyone can help me access the pirate forum I would appreciate it, my old password doesn't work and when I ask for a new one it tells me it will send it to my email though it never appears there.
Andrew Reitemeyer Fri 25 Apr 2014 10:30PM
@davidpeterson I would like to be able to access the minutes and resolutions of the board since October 2013. Why are these not available?
[deactivated account] Sun 27 Apr 2014 1:58PM
we need to have 500. I have not heard from our membership admin how many we have currently.
Once we have 500, we are approved for $20k of election funding.
Hubat McJuhes Mon 28 Apr 2014 9:47AM
@andrewmcpherson Thank you for some hard facts. This covers #1.
#2,3,4 still outstanding. Hopefully we hear more soon from those in the know.
[deactivated account] Mon 28 Apr 2014 9:50AM
We have a board meeting due this thursday. Hopefully this will clarify things then.
Hubat McJuhes Mon 28 Apr 2014 10:37AM
@andrewmcpherson Great. How can one participate in the meeting?
[deactivated account] Mon 28 Apr 2014 1:19PM
@hubatmcjuhes Volunteer to be on the board or related positions, and then sign a NDA for member privacy.
(Mainly we discuss things that need to be done and what will need to be done.)
Danyl Strype Wed 30 Apr 2014 4:51AM
From what I remember, members are allowed to observe Board meetings, which usually take place on IRC (#ppnzboard?):
If minutes from recent meetings have not been published on pp.org.nz, this needs to be done (lots of things about the website need urgent fixing).
Andrew Reitemeyer · Wed 19 Mar 2014 6:30PM
Local chapters should select candidates for local electorates. List candidates should be chosen by the full membership. Ranking should be done by the full membership by approval voting.
A strategy is difficult to formulate in the current situation. Any enthusiasm for activity in this direction is being discouraged.
I would not be able to support a local candidate that has been selected by the executive.
The best use of the election process would be to concentrate on gaining new members. This should be concentrated on forming local parties (not chapters) that would be autonomous and deciding to join the national party when they feel they are ready and the national party is functional.
Another way would be to join with other allied micro-parties to campaign and support a joint candidate