Minutes/National Council/2016-05-25

Agenda

 * Previous meeting's minutes
 * Election
 * Candidate paperwork & Nomination Fees (DanielJ)
 * Election Committee meeting etc
 * Volunteers
 * Election materials
 * Preference Vote
 * Pozible
 * Congress
 * Paypal monies - Pozible or not?
 * General Business

Start: 20:39 AEST

End:  22:10 AEST

National Council

 * Ben McGinnes
 * Simon Frew
 * Fletcher Boyd
 * Michael Keating
 * Daniel Judge
 * Thomas Randle
 * David Crafti
 * Mark Gibbons

Apologies

 * Peter Fulton

Previous meeting's minutes

 * Slight corrections made to 2016-05-11
 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Minutes/National_Council/2016-04-27
 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Minutes/National_Council/2016-05-11
 * See motions

Candidate paperwork & Nomination Fees

 * Daniel has the forms for Sam Darren and John.
 * Michael has Brandon's, no word from Isaac yet.
 * David has Lachlan's, Richard's are in the mail.
 * Mark: Drawing bank cheques from the ANZ account will be difficult because of the multiple signatories requirement. Recommendation is to transfer money to the deputy registered officers in each state.
 * ROs to send treasury bank details for transfer
 * Daniel has received the $1k donation from John and deposited the cheque in the ANZ accounts.

Election Committee meeting

 * Reminder: next election meeting 30/5/2016

Volunteers

 * Michael to contact volunteers that have expressed interest via email.
 * Draft email will be distributed to NC
 * David suggests basic google group/sheets for coordination
 * Daniel will look into using previous election data to concentrate volunteer efforts

Election materials

 * HTVs will be printed in one location and then distributed to either ROs or candidates directly.
 * Ideally HTVs need to be completed early enough to allow for doorknocking etc
 * Requires either having a design finalised in the next week or distributing files for localised printing.
 * Daniel would like to see a matrix/spreadsheet that compares policies from different parties.
 * David: "Will we be able to dedicate a spot on the material to listing, say, a dozen other parties, with a short line about why they should be included in preferences? Maybe that's an idea we could float with the AfP"

Preference Vote
[Times are in AWST] [19:09:48] @dcrafti : Will we be able to dedicate a spot on the material to listing, say, a dozen other parties, with a short line about why they should be included in preferences? Maybe that's an idea we could float with the AfP [19:10:03] @DanielJ : I think ideally what id liketo see [19:10:23] @DanielJ : is a webpage, with a matrixy spreadsheety type thing [19:10:30] @DanielJ : that we can point people to [19:10:37] @DanielJ : prior to election day [19:10:55] @dcrafti : We'd need to get the vote out to our members first, right? It's not about preferencing, per se, but which parties should get a mention? [19:10:59] @Frew : We totally dont want to waste valuable ballot space pimping other Parties [19:11:15] @Frew : I think we should preference 6 [19:11:18] @DanielJ : id love to not spend too much of our actual HTV real estate to disucssiing other parties... (notthat i would rule it out, could be useful?) [19:11:22] @Frew : with no extra info on the HTV [19:11:43] @Frew : website is fine though, if someone wants to do the work, I dont think it is a high priority though [19:11:52] @DanielJ : but yeah, i think for simplicity we just run the 1-6 (or more if we decide to) and at most give a url to point to for more info [19:12:07] @dcrafti : Frew, HTVs always waste space on other parties. I think that because people can't vote above the line for us, they will want to get a feel for us by what we think of other parties and their policies. [19:12:40] @Frew : We write what we believe on the flyers, not by saying what we think of other parties [19:13:05] @dcrafti : If we can include short snippets like: Secular party (wants chaplains out of schools), Greens (has compassionate asylum seeker policy), etc., then that reflects what's good about us as well. [19:13:06] @Frew : Our flyers are about us, everyone else can fuck off, unless they are paying for it [19:14:03] @DanielJ : yeah seriously, just numbers on the HTV i think, if people care that much they will have researched prior. or if we point them to a url with a matrix/table and they care enough they can look it up on their phone [19:14:26] @DanielJ : HTVs are our best way to advertise us. [19:14:42] @Keating_ : ooh Qcode [19:14:44] @DanielJ : canning deisgn: https://pirateparty.org.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Canning-HTV-Front.png [19:14:50] @DanielJ : https://pirateparty.org.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Canning-HTV-Back.png [19:15:07] @DanielJ : plenty of info for people who care. :-) [19:15:15] @dcrafti : OK, then how about no numbers, and instead we use ticks for some parties, crosses for others, and flaming exclamation marks for even more, in a tidy little grid? [19:15:30] @DanielJ : you cant tick and cross on a htv [19:15:59] @Frew : 1-6 minimal space, more for us [19:16:16] @DanielJ : seriously it needs to be a "if you dont know what numbers to put, put these ones, if you trust our jdugement" [19:16:26] @DanielJ : anything else is only going to confuse people [19:16:31] @dcrafti : If all the minor parties show 1-6, then we're all screwed due to exhausted votes. We need to agree to add more to our HTVs. [19:17:30] @DanielJ : though yeah, i AM happy to list more than 1-6, but then we have real estate issues... we dont know how many parties are running yet, but it'll be hard to fit many more than 6 relaistically [19:17:41] @Frew : Havent had any offers for that from anyone else [19:17:48] @DanielJ : if wrried about exhausted votes we put ALP as 6 if our members so decide [19:18:00] @dcrafti : We should talk to them to make that the standard. [19:18:29] @Frew : Got the time to chase them all up? think we should believe them? [19:18:46] @Keating_ : doesn't this need to be taken to the members as well? [19:18:52] @dcrafti : Even the Canning HTV has 12 candidates listed. [19:19:00] @DanielJ : i wouldnt be poopsed to s short spiel pimping the fact that "hey voter, you REALLY should number ALL the boxes, or at least most ofthem, MORE than 6" [19:19:00] @Ben : and this year, let's make sure we've got that authorised byline on both sides just to be sure [19:19:07] @Frew : compulsory preferential voting [19:19:07] @DanielJ : yes ben [19:19:08] @DanielJ : heheh [19:19:25] @Ben : we don't have an excuse this time around [19:19:37] 10+tserong : "Remember, it's your vote, and your choice where your preferences land." <-- room for something like that? ;) [19:19:47] @DanielJ : yeah but a HoR ballot paper is easier to represent cos it is a list down the page... how the fuck we are going to represent a senate paper is gunna suck [19:19:50] @dcrafti : Can I email AfP about setting minimums for number of parties included on the HTVs? [19:20:02] @Frew : Im opposed [19:20:15] @DanielJ : yes tserong, something like that i reckon, maybe an extra line or two [19:20:24] @Frew : Yeah need something like that tserong [19:20:26] @dcrafti : DanielJ, we don't need to make it look like a senate ballot. It just needs to be a list or a grid. [19:20:54] @Keating_ : if we're going to do a "your vote counts" line we should run it in the campaign before election day [19:21:24] @dcrafti : The problem is that even if someone wants to number all boxes in accordance with their preferences, there's no way that they can work out who they would like without heaps of research before the election, and that's just not practical. We need to be able to advise people. [19:21:33] @Rundll : I'm happying to help with content and DanielJ if you have the art work [19:22:06] @DanielJ : yeah but dcrafti, most people dont give a shit. anyone who cares enough, isnt doing their research on a HTV on election day at the polling place [19:22:36] @Frew : Its not on us to hold everyones fucking hands, people need to take democracy more seriously, we have to worry about us [19:22:46] @DanielJ : thats why i reckon we in lead up pimp this 'matrix' if we get one done... and sure, couple it with a spiel on 'why you should number more than 6' [19:23:09] @dcrafti : Right. Most people don't give a shit, but will generally follow instruction if they trust the person giving the instruction. If we won't include enough compatible parties on our ballot, why do we think we'll be on other parties' ballots? [19:23:22] @DanielJ : with our own version of this http://www.chickennation.com/2013/08/18/you-cant-waste-your-vote/ [19:23:26] @Rundll : I'm opposed to any spiel from other parties on our HTV, they get a name and number if they're lucky [19:23:58] @dcrafti : OK, Rundll, but how do we get on their HTVs? [19:24:22] @dcrafti : We haven't been talking to the AfP for ages, so they're probably full for their 1-6. [19:24:31] @Frew : They are dead [19:24:33] @DanielJ : im not opposed to going with listing more than 6, i just dont want to muddy our htvs with talking about other parti3es [19:24:36] @Frew : extenct [19:25:06] MarkG : do we really need to recommend preferences? [19:25:13] @dcrafti : The AfP might not be doing much, but the parties still exist, and they'll get some first preferences. We need to get their preference flows before the votes are exhausted. [19:25:16] @Rundll : dcrafti: our members pref in our vote, we tell the partie where they got, they can really do what they like [19:25:28] @Frew : ^ [19:25:32] @Fletcher : Don't forget that the timeline we proposed earlier for getting a design finalised doesn't allow for much negotiating time. [19:25:54] @Rundll : If we want to introduce deals dcrafti, we have to run another vote on our side [19:26:02] @Rundll : that may not be worth our effort at this point [19:26:22] @dcrafti : Are we giving up on having other parties include us on their HTVs? [19:26:41] @Frew : We will talk to the Parties our members list highly and go from there [19:26:44] 15MarkG : deals don't really matter any more [19:26:53] @Frew : yeah it isnt very important [19:27:05] @Rundll : Nope, we tell them where we're putting them, and ask for reciprocation [19:27:07] @DanielJ : we dont really MarkG, but i think we should at least list 1-6 (or more) if only so we are making sure we are staking a "dont just vote 1" stance and does give us an opneing to discuss with say the greens a preference position etc... and also having our members vote on order is an impirtant distinction for us as a party, if we dont list pref order then we negate that voting process [19:27:13] MarkG : unless we think whoever we deal with has enough volunteers that their HTV recommendations are going to make a difference [19:27:18] @dcrafti : With the way votes can be exhausted, I think that just being on a HTV is more important than ever. [19:27:37] 15MarkG : we could just say vote 1 pirate and 2-5 parties of your choice [19:27:46] @Frew : 2-6 [19:27:53] 15MarkG : sorry typo [19:27:59] @dcrafti : That message is terrible. [19:27:59] @Frew : Im good with 6 [19:28:03] 15MarkG : we better not do that typo on the HTVs [19:28:12] @dcrafti : It encourages other parties to do the same, which leads to exhausted votes. [19:28:26] @DanielJ : yeah but then we dont bother running a vote and dont get to say "hey our members decide our order" which is somethingthat does seem to curry favour, even if it is more meaningless now [19:28:34] @Fletcher : I have a feeling that the number of people following any HTVs are a very small subset of primary votes. [19:28:55] @Frew : Its about 50% in HoR [19:29:09] @dcrafti : Fletcher, following Senate HTVs would have been rare when people could vote 1 above the line. Now it's critical. [19:29:23] @DanielJ : lets be real, i suspect the majority of the population is gunna just vote "1" anyway, rely on the saving provision and we see record exhausted votes anyway :-( [19:29:58] @dcrafti : Quick! Name 12 preferences you'll give, and why you're not voting for the Democratic Labor Party because its name sounds good. [19:30:05] @Frew : Most people wont know about the savings provision [19:30:23] @DanielJ : i dont mnean conciously [19:30:36] @Frew : People voting 1 won't be conscious of the change [19:30:38] MarkG : most won't know about the change to the law and will just vote like they have for the past 25 years [19:30:43] @dcrafti : DanielJ, if we're going to give in so easily, what are we doing here? [19:30:45] @DanielJ : i mean most people will prolly not read the instructions anwyay and just vote 1 likethey always did [19:30:51] MarkG : >80% will just vote 1 [19:30:54] @Frew : Give in what dcrafti? FFS [19:31:12] MarkG : its going to be a vote exhaustion extravaganza [19:31:27] @Frew : Wont be that high I think, more like 40-50% I reckon [19:31:31] @Frew : bet you a beer ;) [19:31:45] @dcrafti : Look, I've had my say. I think that the way the talk about HTVs is going is in the direction of a critical error. I'll let it go as I'm clearly fighting a losing battle. [19:31:49] @DanielJ : i guess what im saying is, our main goal isgetting our HTVs into peoples hands, less to convince them to vote for us or our preference order, but to make themn aware of us and maybe hopefully see whqat we stand for and get interested [19:31:50] @Ben : it'll also be harder for Antony Green to predict the outcome due to that, though [19:32:56] @DanielJ : building on that name recognition and branding and seeing us and going "oh wow, i actually like these policies youve listed here" [19:33:15] @Frew : do we want to carry out multiple votes? [19:33:16] @DanielJ : yeah, so, i assume we will run a vote? [19:33:22] @Frew : So one to list the order [19:33:29] @Frew : one to determine how many we will list [19:34:00] @Frew : Do we want to put the last preference as a major? [19:34:02] 15MarkG : we should contact the parties we preference and ask them to pref us back [19:34:09] @Frew : yeah [19:34:44] @DanielJ : hmmm, we *could* do that i guess? but to be honest, im inclined to just throw up an ordering of parties, base our prefs on that, and give ourselves the freedom to decide howmany we list later on etc for reasons? [19:34:54] @Ben : are we counting the greens as a major now? [19:35:29] @Frew : no [19:35:30] @DanielJ : hmmm, see our members traditionaly put greens second usually for most part [19:36:19] @dcrafti : DanielJ, by deciding sooner rather than later how many parties we will list, we then know how many other parties might include us, based on negotiations with them. No party will include us on their HTV if they are not on ours. [19:36:20] @Ben : that's because they think all greens are Scott Ludlam, which is painfully flawed [19:36:26] @DanielJ : [21:34:01]  Do we want to put the last preference as a major? < by that do you mean reserve #6 as a 'major' slot? [19:36:48] @DanielJ : so as not to exhaust [19:36:51] @Frew : Yeah [19:37:00] @Frew : Which is why we would need to vote on it [19:37:24] @Frew : I dont know if its the right thing to do, but I think a lot of people will be wanting to do that [19:37:34] @dcrafti : People can figure out what to do with the major parties for themselves. I think that if any parties should be left off, it's the majors. [19:37:57] @Fletcher : I thought you were worried about exhausing votes [19:38:11] @Fletcher : *exhausting [19:38:17] @Ben : um, that won't guarantee no exhaustion since that can still flow on past quotas and still exhaust (in part) [19:38:35] @Ben : but it does mean we can avoid accidentally helping to elect some douche [19:38:51] @dcrafti : I'm worried about exhausting votes before voters' preferences are properly considered. They know about the major parties, but they don't know about which among all the minor parties are actually compatible. [19:39:09] @Ben : this is true [19:39:17] @DanielJ : btw, here's the list of registered parties (doesnt account for who is or isnt running in vairous states) https://pad.pirateparty.org.au/p/2016_otherparties [19:39:37] @Frew : its on discuss too [19:40:22] @DanielJ : https://discuss.pirateparty.org.au/t/2016-election-preferences/789 [19:40:23] @DanielJ : yeah [19:40:33] @DanielJ : in fact, ythis debate should maybe be carried on over there? [19:40:49] @Frew : Straight vote then? Let it trail off and leave the majors to the members? [19:40:54] @Frew : We have to decide the vote [19:41:00] @Ben : urgh, the ALA, they should come with a warning ... [19:41:12] @Frew : we can do it by email, but time is sort of short, if we want HTVs early [19:41:26] @dcrafti : Try to work out where you would personally preference Australian Liberty Alliance. [19:41:44] @Ben : down near one nation [19:41:47] @Frew : I will stop voting long before them [19:41:59] @dcrafti : They sound great, form their name and description, and then there's the phrase... "divisive multiculturalism"... O...K [19:42:12] @Ben : they're fans of that xenophobic dutch guy, wilders or whatever his name is [19:42:20] @DanielJ : yeah, there's something to be said for not having to even think of which one you put higher out of ALA or Australia First or One Nation or Rise up australia etc [19:42:25] @DanielJ : Geert Wilders [19:42:34] @Ben : that's him [19:43:19] @dcrafti : The problem with not specifying lots of preferences is that people will then choose based on name alone, and ALA will get decent preferences that way. [19:43:31] @Ben : yep [19:43:32] @DanielJ : They are the party that is pretty much an arm of this Q Society which is some secretive christian group that are almost singehandely responsible for the fact that "OMG HALAL FOOD ARRGH" is even a thing in australia and something peole get upset about [19:43:32] @dcrafti : ... lots of preferences on HTVs ... [19:43:53] @Frew : Only out of people who read what we say, listen to us and do what we say [19:44:02] @Frew : its a fucking waste of space seriously [19:44:03] @Ben : which is why we should at least give our members a heads up on the crypto-fascists in the lists this time around [19:44:30] @dcrafti : I know a lot about politics, relative to the general population, and I hadn't heard of them, and they could have snuck into my preferences if I wasn't told better. [19:44:45] @DanielJ : which is why a webpage with a fit for public consiumption of an ujpdated version of this spradhseet is possibly worth while https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zMpMFrypK7szUXJsMbro-H6EhRZM7h_4AG60ttLQReE/edit#gid=0 [19:44:53] @DanielJ : evben as a marketing exercise for us in the lead up? [19:45:16] @DanielJ : "want to know about all these parties, look at the pirate parties handy guide" [19:45:27] @DanielJ : sure its biased, but what do you expect, we are awesome [19:45:28] @Frew : yeah if people want to do the work [19:45:28] @DanielJ : ;-) [19:45:34] @dcrafti : People won't remember the dozens of names without a written record of it. [19:45:44] @Keating_ : thats what I suggested DanielJ [19:45:45] @Keating_ : lol [19:45:46] @dcrafti : written record of it, in the voting booth. [19:45:52] @Frew : FFS crafti drop it, NO [19:46:02] @Ben : dcrafti, they've nicked their naming strategy from groups like the Australian Civil Liberties Union (which has/had links to National Action) [19:46:16] @Ben : also, there's this: http://australianlibertyalliance.org.au/news-media/news/angry-anderson-and-ala-are-bound-glory [19:46:30] @DanielJ : "click here to print a summary" which points to a print CSS, so ifthey care enough, they can take it with them [19:46:55] @Frew : When shall we hold the vote? [19:47:00] @Frew : With the other votes... [19:47:03] @DanielJ : but we are talking about possibly 1% of the population that would consider doing such a thing, much less our share of that 1% [19:47:11] @DanielJ : it depends [19:47:28] @Rundll : asap imo Frew [19:47:32] @Frew : yeah [19:47:38] @Frew : I am keen to get it done [19:47:38] @Rundll : possible to start it this weekend? [19:47:42] @DanielJ : do we want to just say "here are all the registered parties, preference them as you wish and we will adjust based on who is running where" [19:47:51] @Frew : Yeah [19:47:51] @DanielJ : cos otherwise we have to wait til 9th june which is crazy [19:48:10] @Keating_ : yes [19:51:30] @DanielJ : ok, sor debate in the diuscuss thread, im meantime i will test GVT vote in oyster with a view to running vote asap [19:51:37] @DanielJ : based on registered party list [19:51:58] @DanielJ : we can work on how many listed and deals with parties later inteh process if need be? [19:51:59] @dcrafti : Try to cause an international incident for promotion :-) [19:52:07] @DanielJ : :-) [19:53:00] @Frew : OK [19:53:07] @Frew : Sounds like a plan DanielJ [19:53:11] @Frew : Shall we move on? [19:53:35] @DanielJ : please lets :-D Summary:


 * Debate over how many and what form to list parties on the HTV.
 * Tending towards 1-6, but some dissent
 * Discussion to continue on discuss and/or email

Pozible

 * 8 days to go, only ~50% funded.
 * Larger push on social media and potentially another mailout required.

Congress

 * Announcement email required. Including calls for nominations and proposals
 * People need to start thinking about nominations and looking for people to fill positions
 * Daniel and Ben will not be recontesting their positions
 * Eventbrite event needs to be set up
 * PA hire needs to be organised
 * Thomas will follow up on PA / mics / Streaming gear in the next fortnight

Paypal monies

 * Thomas will email findings to the NC


 * General Business

Motions

 * MOTION: Accept minutes for 2016-04-27
 * Put by: Simon Frew
 * Ayes: 6 (Simon Frew, Thomas Randle, David Crafti, Michael Keating, Fletcher Boyd, Daniel Judge); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 1 (Ben McGinnes)
 * Result: Motion carried.


 * MOTION: Accept minutes for 2016-05-11
 * Put by: Simon Frew
 * Ayes: 7 (Simon Frew, Mark Gibbons, Ben McGinnes, David Crafti, Daniel Judge, Michael Keating, Fletcher Boyd); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Result: Motion carried.


 * MOTION: Close the meeting
 * Put by: Simon Frew
 * Ayes: 5 (Simon Frew, Daniel Judge, Mark Gibbons, Ben McGinnes, Thomas Randle); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Result: Motion carried.