August 13th, 2019 09:46

The Internet Party In 2020 and Beyond

Casper Howell Public Seen by 298

Hey all,
As you'll all likely be aware, the Internet Party currently has less than 500 members and is thus not a registered political party in New Zealand and came in dead last at the election in 2017. What can be done to re-envigorate the party and win over new voters and members for 2020 and beyond. The Party is almost silennt on social media and IPNZ has no public spokesperson within NZ- as Kim Dotcom (afaik) has distanced himself from the Party.
Something has got to be done. With an awesome website and a near-complete though unfinished policy platform, the Internet Party should be pushing HARD to reach voters.
Keen to hear your thoughts

Daymond Goulder-Horobin

Daymond Goulder-Horobin August 13th, 2019 22:09

I man the Facebook whenever I get the opportunity, I agree our Twitter needs manning.

I've started pulling together the campaign for 2020. The membership needs to agree on certain policy points rather than my own, a lot of the membership is in apathy at the moment so what we need is a lightning bolt to start things up again.

Just a thought, but I see you are party president of the Co-operative party so what are your plans for 2020?


Geoff Anderson August 13th, 2019 22:24

Hi all; I turned up about a year ago after a Jimmy Dore show featured Suzi Dawson & I wanted to know more.
I’m a New Zealander, I care but didn’t imagine myself as political. I found the Policy incubator and problems that I found relevant… & I’m still here…
I’ve asked before … but once again: What does the Internet party aspire to be?
A new form of people & communication based super democracy? (That wouldn’t be so bad)
Or some new form of political media company.. (To be avoided).
Do you just want to chase votes or do you want to make something that is popular because it’s doing good?
Realistically; what are you offering that makes you identifiably different (BETTER!) from what s there.
I know what it was at the beginning… I suggest you have lost a lot of that (for political reasons) and need to regain it to become really viable again.
Popular because of Twitter or Facebook is different than “popular for honesty or for stopping spying lying secrecy & corruption”.

Daymond Goulder-Horobin

Daymond Goulder-Horobin August 13th, 2019 22:33

I sometimes like to make this joke:

"Do you want to win or do you want to make a difference?"

Our plan is to win with good policy and good ideas, however given we are against the establishment we may struggle to "win" as what happened in 2014 was very rough for us, and 2017 but for different reasons. For instance when Hone Harawira teamed up with us, Labour and National worked together to keep him from winning the electorate he ran for.

So we will be up against all corners of the Est. Labour, Greens, National, ACT, NZF. A fun battle to have but our goals needs to be making a difference rather than winning.

In regards to popularity of our positions, we prioritize the full membership over the social media, this may cause us to get hit a lot esp. if we go against the recent gun ban which took place which was divided amongst our membership, but something we will stand for if we are backed by our full members. We will lose a lot of "popularity" perhaps in the short-run but our party takes priority.


Geoff Anderson August 13th, 2019 23:20

I had considered mentioning the gun ban. I’m an owner & expressed my feelings at the time.
A politically funded facebook and twitter campaign was used to influence peoples emotional biases to allow a bunch of law changes that didn’t have a chance of passing had it not been for the crime. Secrecy and misinformation were also used.
The gun law change caused law abiding citizens to be breaking new law. Caused my 1956 .22 Remington bolt action bunny gun to be banned. Its not an assault weapon.
The constitution of our nation was fiddled for modern PR politics and that is the bit that annoyed me.
I think I can point to a dozen major political crimes from our representatives; how would the IP feel about ending executive immunity or going after politicians who do naughty things?
I’m manipulating and saying do you follow the politically correct or the honest path? To dodge is politics.
I guess that is what I want from a political party… You know… the idea that they actually represent us not themselves or some corporation. That would stand out in today’s politics.


Casper Howell August 23rd, 2019 21:39

Our plans are to get up to 500 members and get on the ballot, amd we'll be campaigning hard for an electorate seat and on social media. We're interested in an alliance with the Internet Party to build a joint membership list to put solid left-libertarian ideas back on the ballot. Keen to korero with you on this one

Glen Allison

Glen Allison October 13th, 2019 23:52

We have just seen the worst turnout in NZ voting history, and it really does highlight the disconnect between the general population and the powers that be.
There have been some suggestions such as online voting or even making election day a public holiday to make it easier, but if people don't see the point then they still aren't going to make the effort. Both ideas will certainly not hurt and should be pushed forward with, but I see the problem is bigger than just how people vote.

When it comes to the smaller parties, they too often look to tweak rather than reinvent. Just modifying the tax, changing the minimum income rate or increasing a budget here and there does so little that it doesn't inspire the majority of the people. Then add the number of times politicians have made campaign promises that never materialise once they gain office, and you can see why our voter turnout is so abysmal.

So how do we look to change that? You campaign on real systemic change. Talk about changing our democracy to a democratic technocracy/meritocracy.
The internet party is all about technology, so a push for a technocracy would be perfectly in line with the image.

Do you know why every successful corporation in the world doesn't use a democratic process to pick its leadership? They know that finding the best people means you need to consider education, achievements and experience. Democracy is currently just a race for fame. People often vote for people they recognise, which is why you get Arnie as governor. Very few people had any idea what his policies were.
So firstly we should change the leadership position so anyone in the country can apply. You create a set of criteria (something like: over 30, no prison time served, born in the country, holding an advanced qualification, never found guilty of gross misconduct etc), then anyone can complete an application form with their CV attached. The standing parliament debate, vote and work through the submissions until you have a top 3-4 choices. Those candidates are each given a televised 1 hour interview, covering local and global issues as well as their own history and achievements.

The population then votes on their preferred candidate, with the result being a democratically elected technocracy.

This way anyone can apply regardless of money, there are no campaigns allowed so no wealthy outside influence, everyone has an even footing, and you are basing the decision on quality not fame. It would be more inclusive, it would break the two main parties power hold and it would give people a clearer understanding of what the candidates stand for.

Perhaps for those who are given a portfolio to run, you have the leader go through the applications to narrow to the best few. Those within that industry then get to vote on the top choices. Doctors, nurses and those in the medical sector vote on the MP of health care, while teachers, principals and school administrators vote on the MP of education etc. Most votes gets the role while second highest gets the deputy position. On election day you would cast a vote for the PM and a second vote for whichever area of government was most directly relevant to your career.

Anyway, just some ideas to throw up for discussion. Perhaps there is a better way, or perhaps the ideas can be modified or reworked. Whatever the choice, just remember the main reason Obama won was his slogan of "change".


Geoff Anderson October 14th, 2019 21:47

Nope; all you have to do is “give people a say”.
Make them feel like they live in a democracy instead of this fake democrazy, leadership of elites.
Nobody is going to read all these policies that you are creating. Don’t do the std of saying this is our policy vote for us..
Use your website to get the people to come up with the policies and you will get numbers.
If you want their patronage and loyalty get them involved! Use the power of the internet.

As to leadership: Put a health & safety test in, (psych test) that excludes socio-paths from positions of power. (They are the root of the problem)
We don’t want leadership from control freaks, liars, thieves and corp. stooges. We have to prosecute them and remove them if they misbehave.
Imagine an electoral ballot that has a box that says “I have no faith in ‘this’ or any of these candidates”.
A non vote is a refusal to play a fixed game and people are becoming aware of it.

Daymond Goulder-Horobin

Daymond Goulder-Horobin October 16th, 2019 02:24

Usually in a republic you elect people you can trust to act on your behalf rather than having each member vote on every single issue since that requires the person be clued up on every single issue.

For instance just being informed on the Cannabis Referendum requires an extensive review of the literature in terms of the health benefits of cannabis and the risks associated with legalization of said issue. I like Referendums when there is incomplete information, otherwise I prefer voting for a person or a group to represent you.

Single Transferable Vote would solve the "I need to make sure that guy doesn't get in" problem that we have atm. Even some of my friends that support the Internet Party vote for the Greens or even Labour to prevent National from getting in which misrepresents the support for a particular group in an election. I believe that investigating STV to see how effective it would be may be a decent policy to hold in our Governance portfolio. Naturally there is a conflict of interest with this approach from National and Labour that know STV would stifle the vote against them so I believe minor parties should have this has a default position.

Daymond Goulder-Horobin

Daymond Goulder-Horobin October 16th, 2019 02:38

I'm going to release the policy committee documentation in a week or two which shows how we are going to go forward with policy in 2020 and structuring the committee. It will focus primarily on forming policy positions and run through the membership and if time allows fully backing up what we have with facts, observations and evidence. Ill admit it may not be as powerful as 2014 overall but it will be more robust and focused. And ANYONE interested can contribute as they like to whatever they are passionate most about.

Glen Allison

Glen Allison October 16th, 2019 03:34

"Make them feel like they live in a democracy instead of this fake democrazy, leadership of elites."
Absolutely agree, campaigns cost millions so most people can't get considered. It is either the big parties or no hope. The US elections (Hillary vs Trump) had a combined cost of ~$1.2 billion. While ours are not on the same scale, they still run into the millions, making money the deciding factor rather than the quality of the individuals.

"Nobody is going to read all these policies that you are creating. Don’t do the std of saying this is our policy vote for us.."
Again, completely agree. Most people aren't voting on policy, and there are simply too many to ever get to grips with. People will vote with their heart, not their head. You must have policy, but recognise that is not what wins elections.

"As to leadership: Put a health & safety test in, (psych test) that excludes socio-paths from positions of power."
I can see that being political suicide. A test for mental health, people subjectively unable to get jobs, a test that has nothing to do with their ability to perform their job. Any restrictions on who can apply must be on objective facts only (age, place of birth, criminal history etc).

"Usually in a republic you elect people you can trust to act on your behalf rather than having each member vote on every single issue since that requires the person be clued up on every single issue. "
While a vote on everything would be impractical, there is certainly more options on representation that could be used. There are currently 27 politicians handling the various portfolios and we have no input into who those people are. Perhaps voting on the 4-5 biggest responsibilities? Or as one suggestion made, give everyone a second vote for the area of responsibility that relates to their career path. We don't have to vote on the decisions made, but should have some say in who are making those decisions.

"Single Transferable Vote would solve the "I need to make sure that guy doesn't get in" problem that we have atm"
Agree that STV is a better method than we currently have, and is used successfully in many places. It is also a change which could be achieved as people want change and that would be an easy sell. I would prefer the changes went further, but the system is so structured against change that perhaps a step in the right direction is the best place to aim.


irreversiblechaos November 4th, 2019 04:20

Hello back again I came across this and I realised the need to be a political party to achieve change is not a requirement in fact it could be an impediment.

If you think about it the politicians follow the popular even more so today as they watch polling constantly and their policies reflect the popular so you might have a radical position and what you need to do is make it popular and the politicians and their policies will follow.

What you need is a policy that although radical or unthinkable is actually workable and as long as it is workable then it can become policy as long as you can make it popular.

For example you might propose giving everyone $130000 at the age 23 now this is unthinkable but if you changed the money system and backed the new system with bitcoin and then created New Zealand money against the bitcoin and paid out as the newly created New Zealand dollar backed by bitcoin it is possible even though at the moment it is unthinkable.

You could propose no income tax and no GST these things are at the moment unthinkable but even with a small base of people that will never make the number to be a political party you could work to make the unthinkable popular.

You are after all the internet party so of all the people with some idea of the medium it should be possible to turn the unthinkable into the popular.

IP Jo Booth

IP Jo Booth January 20th, 2020 17:41

Looking to stir up the IP #tech side of things this year, initially just to keep things ticking over, but looking for that spark I remember from 2014 to reignite this thing.

Will be getting @Jo Booth to dedicate an hour a week to catching up and moving things forward, more if we see movement.

I miss the awesome 💜👊🏼🔊

Mason Bee

Mason Bee January 21st, 2020 20:06

@Jo Booth @Daymond Goulder-Horobin you helped neutralize the Party with your unthinking support of Suzie Dawson and then you have done just about nothing for the past two years. And by just about I mean there has been a submission on the TPPA and VIctoria University's name. I have done more to fight for the rights of New Zealander's in the last two years than the Internet Party. That's just embarrassing.

So let's get this straight. Anything that happens with this Party that is associated with you or any of the other Dawson supporters I will be against. If Dawson is involved then I will be sending emails to the media to make sure they are aware of the situation.

I think we can safely say that you guys supported Dawson ripping $8000 off Fred Look and then continued to back her while she used the Party colours, name and things like the Christchurch Massacre to raise $50,000 for herself. Let alone all the other shit that has come out about her.

You betrayed the Party and you betrayed your country by not fighting for it over the last three years while you kissed ass. That might be why you are missing your awesome.

Mason Bee

Mason Bee March 23rd, 2020 08:32