> Of course, since the US is not a parliamentary democracy, our Pirate
> Party would have to be much larger than the Swedish Pirate Party to
> have a significant effect on our elections (except perhaps by
> splitting the vote as Nader is supposed to have done). That, or it
> would have to be concentrated in a single state so that it can put
> representatives and senators in Congress, as the Free State Project
> <http://freestateproject.org/> hopes to do for libertarianism.
>
> This is a fundamental problem with the way our government is
> structured, and not something that looks easy to fix.
As the resident political scientist, I must point out that this may be
considered a feature rather than a bug -- it minimizes factions and
pushes debate toward the center. At any rate, it's a matter of opinion.
That's not to say third parties have no effect in the U.S. If the Pirate
Party grows, and the Democrats and Republicans are seeing a reduction in
donations, volunteers, and voters... sure, the Pirates may have only won
a few percent of the vote, but keep in mind that Congressional elections
are often decided by a few percentage points. If/when someone loses an
election because of the Pirate vote, watch how long it takes Washington
to notice.
http://www.pirate-party.us/
What'd be really interesting is if something like this gets off the
ground in a state with electoral fusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fusion
Besides cross-endorsement, probably the best chance for a non-major
party candidate to influence an election on free culture issues would be
a well-known person running for office as a Pirate / independent / their
own party. Think, e.g., Mark Cuban.
Gavin
|
