Home | About | Donate

Iceland's Pirate Party Makes Strong Showing in New Election


#1

Iceland's Pirate Party Makes Strong Showing in New Election

Common Dreams staff

Iceland's Pirate Party has tripled its seats in the 63-seat parliament, election results show.

Birgitta Jonsdottir, the leader of the Pirate Party, said she was satisfied with the result. “Whatever happens, we have created a wave of change in the Icelandic society,” she told a cheering crowd here early Sunday morning.

The Pirates won 10 seats, more than tripling its three seats in the last election. The Left-Green Party also won 10 seats Saturday.


#2

If only we had multi-party proportional representation instead of the oligarchy's duopoly . . .

Another reason for vote Green and get at least a 5% showing.


#3

“Like Robin Hood, because Robin Hood was a pirate, we want to take the power from the powerful to give it to the people.”

And I thought that Government elected by the people was suppose to act on the behalf of the people...Now we know better. The corporations who fund the government, own and control the government.......Looks like we need pirates to balance the ship. The Green Party is one way, and there are other ways.....Power speaks to Power...look at what happened out West by the Bundy's...looks like those militia movement threaten the powers that be, so they got a free pass...not so for the indigenous tribes, they will not get a pass.


#4

What difference would it make if we had a 79% turnout given the two horrible oligarchy candidates Americans had shoved down our throats with billion dollar propaganda campaigns?

There is a good reason why the Pirate Party's primary goal is direct democracy. Americans won't talk about direct democracy. We choose to ignore it. Why? Because we are exceptional? Because we are too big for direct democracy notwithstanding online communications? Because our people have been brainwashed into thinking that ours is the best "democracy"? Because our oligarch forefathers designed it?

http://www.onlinedirectdemocracy.org


#5

Yo ho, yo ho, a Pirate's life for me...!


#6

Perhaps the Pirates can lead the way to a better world--assuming that that's even POSSIBLE any more!


#7

It's actually a good thing that the Pirates are a minority party. This way they can gain parliamentary experience which they would be otherwise lacking.


#10

A multiparty democracy in the US will only be achieved by a re-write of the US constitution. Voting for Jill stein won't help at all.

You are safe there in Virginia voting Green (who could have figured such a thing 30 years ago?) But in my region, all a vote for Stein will do is get Trump elected. It is probably a foregone conclusion anyway....


#11

Totally different system. Voting for Stein does not put anyone in any seats in the US congress. 18 percent voting for Stein would just mean an unprecedentedly large landslide win for Trump.


#18

Our old constitution leads to a two party plutocracy:
-- black box voting machines that when the wacky results are added together, stretch beyond several chi-squares with what the polls say should have happened
-- numbers of voters disappearing from the rolls sometimes
-- mile-long voting lines in selected districts when it suits somebody
-- no media access for popular ideas, even when the public's airwaves are being given away to private companies for free
-- police mass punishment without resorting to a court system
-- mass cancer, heart attack and diabetes deaths caused by companies selling us junk
-- global thermonuclear war as a solution for something or other
-- national near-bankruptcy because of oil wars.
-- planetary ecocide soon

So, where specifically in the internet is the U.S. crowdsourced constitution going to be crowdsourced?


#19

I find it interesting how "lesser evilism" is talked about as if it were a self-obvious fallacy.

It isn't a fallacy at all. It is a rational decision making framework based upon a pragmatic evaluation. You may not share the same priorities or assumptions, but it is in fact a sound and reasonable way to approach voting.

I wouldn't be so optimistic about the Green party being allowed to participate in debates if they get 5% of the vote. In Canada the leader of the Green party has a seat in government, we have a multi-party system, and the Greens still aren't allowed to participate in debates.

I also don't get how you can say that voting for third parties doesn't take votes away from the primary parties. That defies logic. It seems to be quite clear that it does, unless you believe that the Greens have "bipartisan" support or that the majority of people who would vote for them would otherwise not vote at all.

I do agree that people in non-contested states should vote Green.


#20

Inspiring.


#21

this is a fair response, but it misunderstands one important thing: the rationality of lesser evil voting is directly tied to the aspirations of the voter. In other words, if your goal is to get a more progressive politics in the US by pressuring one of the two state parties, then LEV is fully irrational. If this were your goal, voting Green would be the most rational. And the reason is because we don't necessarily have to confine our political activity to a 4 year window. Is it risky letting a bad person win an election? Of course it is, but LEV already acknowledges the other candidate is no prize, either, and that mitigates the risk a great deal. Weighing that against the possibility of actually forcing a party to respond to popular concerns via real pressure--by having a viable alternative to vote for--you almost have a duty to vote for the insurgent party. IF, of course, you really want change.
If you're largely okay with things as they are now, and are interested only in modest reforms, I think LEV is perfectly acceptable.
The claim that rationalists for LEV make about the necessary pragmatism of choosing the lesser of bad choices, I think, is not so much about pragmatism as it is about cynicism. If your stated goal is to make American politics more responsive to the concerns of ordinary Americans, there is simply nothing "pragmatic" about perpetuating the system that's ignoring the public will. The most practical thing to do is accept the risk attached to the potential win of the greater evil in order to make it possible in the future to elect a greater good, a possibility that LEV entirely forecloses.
It's a shame we're reduced to this calculation, I agree. But there it is. And this is as practical and pragmatic as politics gets, especially if one aspires to a progressive rule.


#22

You're assuming that if Stein weren't in the race, those who would have voted for her would vote for Clinton as their next best choice. I just don't think that's the case -- it certainly isn't for me. I won't vote for either of the two deplorables because I don't want to have to regret my vote for the next four years.

I also don't agree that Clinton is necessarily the lesser evil. Trump is a buffoon and an embarrassment, but Clinton is certainly no progressive and is likely to have one hell of a bloody reign.


#25

What an inspiration! For a Party that was founded in 2012 to be just shy of a commanding majority in the world's oldest Parliament should be an inspiration to us all!

Sadly, such a coup cannot happen here unless the "winner take all" electoral system is replaced with a representative Parliament like the rest of the civilized world!


#27

Those white boys were just throwing a hissy fit over hunting land. They weren't threatening any sort of status quo like blocking the development of an oil pipeline. Oh and did I mention they are white? White boys crying over something inconsequential. Let's see what happens if those same white boys try to block an oil pipeline but they won't...


#28

Yunzer I am voting for Jill Stein because I want to vote FOR someone that I feel will help
this country. It sounds as if you are a person who wants everything tomorrow and is not
willing to work for choices on the ballot. We need to get rid of our two party system and
expand into choice. There are amendments to the Constitution and that's how women
got the right to vote, among other things. You need to lose some battles sometimes
before you win a war. We don't have to overhaul the Constitution COMPLETELY.
We need some creative brave people who are willing to work for change.

I'm glad you were not born during the Boston Tea Party when the tea was thrown into
the harbor. You probably would have been standing on the sidelines complaining that
the bags of tea were too heavy.

We have two candidates who are evidently unacceptable to millions of VOTERS.
As citizens we may have to modify the Constitution in order that we have more than
a two party system, but that takes work Yunzer. You would rather leave things alone
and vote for one of these two idiots ... or will you vote at all? Wake up, Yunzer, we are
at the start of World War III and Putin is a strong, intelligent, person, and we need a
strong, capable President to lead us and neither of the two major candidates fill the bill.
Changing the rules so that we have more of a choice in our voting process is, in fact
overdue.. It's time for change and choice. As far as the winner of the election, if
things get too dicey with the War, there is a small chance that the election could be
delayed if Putin gets frisky with his attitude and bombs and Obama may push the
election back and remain in office. That isn't in the Constitution, but he has done
a lot of things that are not according to Hoyle. For instance,on December 19, 2015,
when everyone went home for the holidays in Wash. DC,he signed into effect, quite
quietly, that if needed, we would have military rule in the streets and FEMA camps.
Not many know about this; but if he can make those kinds of decisions on his own,
then we certainly can put an amendment into our Constitution concerning
voting choices and party choices. We just need brave men and women to step
forward ... progressives who are willing to work hard and don't make excuses.


#29

I think you're absolutely right about rationality being pegged to the aspirations of the voter. I don't agree with the premise that you have to be comfortable with the status quo to accept the logic of choosing the lesser evil. It depends on your priorities and the underlying assumptions (or as you put it, aspirations).

For example, whether the Dems or the Repubs win in the U.S has major implications for reproductive rights and marriage equality. If those issues are critical issues to you, then that will trump more abstract reasoning about long-term electoral strategy. Similar arguments could cogently be made by environmentalists. You don't have to agree with those arguments, but they are valid and they can't be dismissed simply as fallacious (something is not fallacious by virtue of it being disagreed with or even by its being false).

Or, if you're a member of a struggling union that is fighting to stay alive, you might care more about preventing a Republican sweep than you would about paving the way for the Greens to have a shot at participating in the debates in 10 or 12 years.

Alternatively, if you, like me, do not have faith in the electoral system at all because of deeper underlying assumptions about the nature of political power, then it's hard to see there ever being any kind of option produced by it other than a lesser-evil. A choice of lesser evils is the inevitable product of a representative electoral system. That is not a manifestation of a centrist, status-quo attitude, but quite the opposite.

I'm not saying everyone should adopt a lesser-evilism mentality. Or even that anyone should. I just don't like it when ideologues like all the Matt_Heinses on this site refer to anyone with any kind of differing political opinion as "manipulating people" and "usurping democracy". That's the same "lalala I can't hear you" logic regurgitated by the right wing ideologues which contributes to the impression that we are all so wildly divergent in our interests that no kind of political compromise could ever be possible. Of course, any time someone tries to inject some nuance into these forums, the response is predictable (see Heins' posts above).


#30

i'll keep it short, because there's a good chance you've just mescaline-bendered yourself into exile and this will all disappear.

I disagree strongly with Devogenes' position. But that doesn't make him evil. Nor does it make him irrational or being an operative for "the man". There's no need for the hysterics, Matt, and I have to tell you, given how out of character this run of posts is compared to your history, I'm wondering if your account hasn't been hacked. It's that or you've been very successful at hiding an issue at bipolarity.

For old times' sake, I'll let the craziness go. But I hope you get it together, brother.


#31

Okay, I think I'm following the ball here a bit better. This raises a more complex debate that is often found in revolutionary left circles, so I guess I'm not expecting it to be present here. This is also a rotten mode for addressing all of the implied layers beneath the assumption of an electoral system as "inherently evil", which sort of invites a ton of metaphysical polemics that I know I'd rather avoid...:slight_smile:

So I'll leave my limited response here to your example of the struggling union member who goes LEV to preserve a meager gain, or prevent a perceived backslide under the greater evil.

This, to me, is an informational argument. And by that I mean that it implies that the unionists perception of the stakes is accurate, not a result of an engineered reality. And I think in the case of this election, it would be hard to argue that a unionist would risk so much more from Trump than Clinton as opposed to the potential gain of introducing a pro-labor competitor to the Democrats, which strikes me as a far more rational investment of energy.
Clinton is a known enemy of labor. No better than Trump, who might not even be as bad if he's serious about trade agreements (which we don't know).

So I'd agree that the vote would make sense if the race was between the media image of Clinton coming from Democrats and the demonized persona of Trump. But obviously I don't believe that's the case. I see little space between these two candidates at least in the area of attitudes. But yes, if you do see such a space, your position is far more defensible.