They use an internet based system called "liquid feedback" for collaboration. Every member can propose stuff. Every member gets one vote. The highest voted stuff becomes the program. All of this happens online.
Yes, it's still young and immature. But please compare to how your conventional political party operates and tell me with a straight face it doesn't sound like a good idea.
Politicians should vote based on their visions and beliefs or visions and beliefs shared by the party. This is just random, populistic and doesn't have any real meaning.
I want to know from a political party how will they deal with real issues. With low employment rate. With bad economy. With good economy. Where will they invest, where will they cut.
"We will vote about that later" is definitevely a terrible answer.
Consensus works far better for policy; 90% of people might read something and think it sounds good, while 10% of people might spot a terrible flaw. Simply voting would let the policy be ratified with the flaw, while in a consensus process the facilitator would let each side present their views, and someone might come up with a proposal that addresses the flaw and satisfies everyone.
Consensus doesn't need 100% agreement, and even when you get down to the most fundamental agreements, people with the same facts who are aware of each others viewpoints can still disagree (at which point the majority view has to win), but the process should continue until that point is reached. This process does require some subjective decision making (e.g. around when consensus has been reached), so it can't yet be fully automated.
I don't think their goal is automating the decisions, their goal is to add much needed efficiency and transparency to the process by taking it online.
When you look at their software then it's a web-forum with a purpose-built voting/karma system.
For the first time I (a non-member) can go to the website of a political party, read their discussions, learn who is proposing what, who is voting for what and what the dominating opinions are.
You and I may not agree with their (lack of) positions on various subjects. But, as I understand it, it takes nothing more than an online-registration to join in on a discussion, and to present your own ideas on a level playground.
As far as I am concerned that's an overdue breath of fresh air.
Unless you prefer the state-of-the-art; backroom-politics with an "old boys club" calling the shots...
This are their current goals. They want to allow private copying. So selling the copy would still be illegal.
Concerning patents: "We reject patents unanimously onto organisms and genes on business ideas and also to software"
* legalisation of non-commercial copying
* prohibition of DRM technologies
* right to derive from existing works
* reduction of copyright terms (expiration with death of the author or earlier)
* (continued) prohibition of patents on software, business models, genes and seeds
* http://www.stoptoptwo.org/about/ * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_%2820...
The Pirate Party, if it gets into government, will invariably be a member of a coalition with limited power to influence policy. In the aftermath of elections it may have limited bargaining power as a balance of power/kingmaker party. In both of these situations it makes sense for it to be a "one-trick candidate", using its influence to deal with the issues that it cares about, and staying more or less quiet on issues that the larger parties care more about.