Text 33374, 135 rader
Skriven 2009-06-15 13:55:54 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Well?
=============
Hello Robert,

On Thursday June 11 2009 06:44, you wrote to me:

 MV>> 1% is the votes they got in Germany where they only just starterd.
 MV>> Their target group is much bigger than tat 1%. In Sweden they got
 MV>> over 7% and that is good enough for one, possibly two votes in EP.

 RB> I seem to remember that the EP has over 700 members. One, two or even
 RB> ten seats won't come even close to a majority or even fraction status.

Every party has that problem. Even the biggest party in The Netherlands, the
CDA, has on;y five seats in the EP. They all have to make alliences with others
with similar ideas.

 MV>> Whatver you do, you will annoy someone and make him not vpote for
 MV>> you. It *is* a matter of "pleasing everyone".

 RB> Michiel, it's a question of whether the name has positive or negative
 RB> associations to the bulk of the population. You see things too
 RB> simplistically when you call that "trying to please everyone".

It *IS* simple. Taking away someone's negatiove association amounts to
"pleasing that someone".

 RB>>> Aside from that, you'd have to be blind not to see the headlines
 RB>>> here after each act of piracy - and the mismanaged GSG9 (elite
 RB>>> rapid deployment force) operation didn't help improve the image.

 MV>> Sure. You'd also have to be blind not to see the headlines about
 MV>> that Air France plane that went down in the Atlantic. Neither have
 MV>> anything to do wth the PP.

 RB> Except that the doings around Somalia _do_ center around piracy and
 RB> pirates.

But the PP does npt advocate entering ships and taking the crew for hostage.
All that they have in common with the Somalian pirates is the word "pirate".
Everyone with half a brain cab see that.

 RB>>> OK, then I suggest you form a party called "Child Porn Party" and
 RB>>> see how many votes you get.

 MV>> Hmm, there actually is - or was - a political party called like
 MV>> that. They want to ease the laws on sex with children....

 RB> And how much of the vote do/did they get?

IIRC they did not even get enough support to regidster as a poloytoical party.
But that was not because of the name, it was because almost nobody liked what
they stood for.

 MV>> But the negative associatin exists onl;y in *your* mind.

 RB> Hardly. Look at

 RB> http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,629533,00.html

 RB> (German) to see a similar discussion.

What I see is ONE interviewer questioning the name and the person interviewed
giving a balanced reply.

 MV>> Anyway, I *like* the name Pirate Party. It appeals to me. If it
 MV>> puts some others off, so be it. I woud be very disapponted if they
 MV>> flip-flopped and changed the name just because someone like you is
 MV>> irritated by it. in fact, they may lose my vote when they do that.

 RB> Which will doubtless tear them up mightily, when they consider the
 RB> votes they gained by removing a negative association from the party.

Bob, it is just a name. A rose by any other name still smells as a rose.

 MV>>>> Of course they do. They just don't associate the Pirate Party
 MV>> Because I have never heard anyone complain about the name before.

 RB> You obviously lead a very sheltered life.

On the contrary, I suffer from a mild form of information overload. That I
never head anyone complain about it, may have something to do with the fact
that the Pirate Party did not tale part in the election here. All the media
attention went to the parties that did participate. The Swedish PP did not get
more than a few lines.

 MV>> But of course. That name is one of the reasons I like the PP. I
 MV>> like the name, it sticks out among the many nondescript "please
 MV>> everyone" names.

 RB> Read the article I cited above. Mr. Popp (one of the co-founders of
 RB> the German "Pirates") says something similar. It remains to be seen
 RB> whether notoriety draws more voters than it repels.

I have read the article and what I read did not gve me the impression that mr.
Popp agrees with you. he merely tried to give it some nuance.

 MV>> IIRC it has never happened in the history of Dutch politcts that a
 MV>> party got an absolute majority. Every party is a minority.

 RB> Still, there's a difference between 1% and 20% of the vote. No party
 RB> will form a coalition with a 1% party.

Don't say that too loud. Well, maybe not with 1% but here three party
coalitions have been formed with the smallest party having only two or three
seats.

When two big parties are just short of a majority, it is not to their
adavantage to bring in a third big party. That big thisrd [arty would demand
its fair share of cobinet minsiters, which would reduce the influnce of the
other two. A small third party would not water down their influece too much. In
fact we have such a coalition right now. CDA, 44 seats, PvdA, 42 seats and CU 3
seats. Or 28.6%, 27,3% and 2.1% of the votes.

So a 2% party is not witout chances of taking part in a coalition and the PP is
only just getting oof the ground.

What may keep them oout though ius the fact that they are a one issie party.
One issue parties are nearly always doomed to opposition. Which OTOH does not
mean that they have no influence. It often happens that ideas initiated by a
one issue party are adopted by the establishment.

 MV>> Like Björn I just do not care all that much about the people who
 MV>> did not vote for the PP.

 RB> In that case, both of you are mere "dabblers" in politics, preferring
 RB> to address a small group of the already convinced than to attract
 RB> those who presently remain sceptical. That's doubtless an interesting
 RB> hobby, but not really a path to change of the status quo.

I think you are wong. But the next election will tell...


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)