The pirate party wants several steps in enabling more citizen participation.
First, they want to make government more transparent so that the people actually have all the information needed to make informed decisions on their hands. No longer do they want to accept that crucial legislation is often negotiated behind closed doors and only announced once everything is already sewn up. Also the contracts the government has with the private sector need to be made transparent. We need proper open data portals. There's a lot of things do to in this area alone.
Second, they want more votes on specific political issues on the regional, state and federal level. Those are currently only possible in very limited form (they are non binding for the government in most cases), and not at all possible at the federal level.
Third, their longterm vision includes a concept called "Liquid democracy" where basically everyone has the opportunity to have a voice in the political process. This will be facilitated using digital means. Specifically software called "adhocracy" / "liquid feedback" is being developed for this. The pirate party in germany already uses this system for their internal decision making.
It's a carefully balanced system comprised of direct voting on issues, and delegating voting power to representatives.
See here for more info on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_Democracy
So i don't see the danger of inviting mob rule with the pirate party. As i see it, they want to open up the political system to more direct participation while keeping it stable enough to guarantee basic democratic freedoms (like minority protections)
The should really be looking at switzerland for some of this stuff. I think we handle this pretty nicly.
I think if you look at the amount of bad laws produced this way compaird to how much bad laws most governments creat with there exlusion from the people its pretty clear witch fails more often.
In generall the "tyranny of the masses" is a problem in every democracy. I would trie to solve it with a very strong civil liberty laws and a court that can block laws that go against them, like they did in germany with the "Hacker tools" and Communication Storages Laws.
I vote for them because of other things, like transparency and freedom of the web. Unfortunately there never is a political party that satisfies everyone's needs to a 100%. Maybe some kind of new system could be invented to fix that, though.
Ways to creat a law (lets take banning video games). If you are in one of the two houses of parlament you can put in a motion that tells what it is you want to achive. This gets votet on by both houses and if it pases both it gets to the bundesrat (witch are just the 7 big ministers, one for law, one for inner, one for outer ....) they have to produce a acctual law bases on that motion. This law gets then voted on by both houses. If it passes you have a new law. Jet it often happens that somebody does not like such a law, if that happens the can take a "referendum" with means that the have to get (i think) 50'000 signatures and that forces a real vote with the hole country. That happens quite often because the "referendum" is pretty easy to do.
An example of this whas when they wanted to join the EG, the right wing took the referendum and won the vote after that.
The other way is more people driven. If you want something to happen (a basic income or prhibitation of minaretts) you have to collect (i think) 100'000 signatures and this then again results in a vote.
Simular systems exist on "kantons" level. Witch would be like state in the US or bundesland in germany. There are 26 of those but the processes in all of them are pretty diffrent.
On the smallest level you vote most on old school village meetings.
So its not direct democracy but its pretty easy to force a vote almost anything.Witch result in voting farly often.
The last time I think I had to vote on 7 issus on state level and 2 on kanton level.
Examples: "Stop building second appartment" - Sombody had an issue that there was to much building of houses that where mostly empty in small old mounten towns. I did not pass.
"Book Price Binding" - Basiclly the wantet that the publisher could dictate a price that every seller had to keep. Staat mandatet monopoly, that got crashed too.
"6 Week of Holydays for everybody" - that was crashed too,
Cant remember any others.
You can do all of this pretty easly with letters almost no work.
(btw this is only what I remember Im not sure if I got all of the prcesses right)
Conservative means to not want change for change's sake, and that can be a good thing sometimes.
It's not so much fear of changes to come, but fear of the last few decades of change, and trying to get back to an idealised past. I'm in England. Tabloid-driven conservatism here tends to be xenophobic, homophobic, europhobic, ... basically panphobic.
Or that may be my liberal bias.
I am in London. My experience has differed - we have the Daily Mail and the Murdock press tying to influence national policy, we have a party of the "mainstream left" whose actions last time around included "public-private partnerships" (privatisation of schools and hospitals), an expensive foreign war on flimsy grounds, surveillance state via CCTV and internet monitoring, active support for extraordinary rendition, and they wanted to extend detention without trial to 40 days.
Currently we're finding out via the Leveson inquiry just how powerful the Murdock press has become.
I don't find that to be "left" at all. Who would you classify as "extreme left" in this case?