No, the wouldn't. As an ex PP-er (HR), i can say that the major problem in the vast majority of the PPs are that they are literally "too liberal." The differences in how individual members perceive what PP is and should be, are so great that they tear the party apart. From what I've seen (and I've met them), PP-IS is one of the rare which has managed to achieve enough homogeneity of core members which is needed for practical work and progress.
tl;dr: You can't have an organisation where everyone wants to do things differently.
I think that diversity wouldn't be the problem, when liquid feedback would work. But communication in the PP is really slow relative to their tech based democratic goals. The process to get a clear statement is too slow.
Can there be a clear statement in a group whose members are different enough that it clearly doesn't have a common one?
Electronic democracy solves precisely nothing in practice because democracy is not about technology and mathematics, it's about the people.
What if you have a 50%+1 majority on your vote, and the other 50%-1 of the people are so actively against it and bitter that there is no way they will accept the result of the vote, let even cooperate? And by "50%+1" I don't mean 11 votes vs 10 votes in your library group, I mean like 100,000 votes for one side and 99,999 votes for the other. Can you seriously consider that the first side won the vote? Can you seriously do anything practical with 50%-1 members opposing you?
That is what was (and I think still is) happening in PP parties.
And on top of that there's all the usual issue of large-ish scale politics, with blocks forming, with small but screamingly loud minorities, etc. etc. which now, because of the digital medium each require attention. Do you wish to participate in a forum where you MUST, by the way of the forum's statutes, listen even to the most vitriolic, uneducated, screaming lunatic trolls, and be expected that you deal with those situations politely with "Thank you for your input. if 50% of the members agree with your idea to make tin-foil-hats mandatory, and declare war on Kazakhstan, we will."? Even if you are, a couple of years of that happening every single day will probably erode that attitude. Hence, no "sane" members, hence no votes.
Actually, to get something in german's pirate party program, there must be a 66% majority.
Hm. I never heard of blocks in the pirate party. Luckily, it seems that the core pirates are too liberal for that. Things could go wrong, but then we simply start a new party.
And yes, we must listen to everyone. Whatever troll it might be. You must listen them to tell them otherwise and to learn from them. It might be the only way a democracy can function well.
I think this is interesting but I'm not sure I follow.
So by increasing communication speed, diversity is less of a problem ?
I guess my question is what is implied by communication speed ?
I think I'm missing something about the implications because it doesn't seem like communication speed would change anything, if the members are really stubborn.
Yes, but they would then know, that they are stubborn. Actually, there are so many individual people in the pirate party because they think the pirate party is doing what the individual does. Teaching them otherwise makes a difference. But this requires lots of communication and since we all have digital dementia and are quick to bore, we better do this quick and often.
Fast communication is actually just a feature for the outer world to tell them, what we work for, in time. Too often it isn't clear what we stand for to a fresh topic. The media is complaining and the reader starts to think badly about us.
I blame the early influx from members of various other parties (though mostly Greens and the left-wing party "Die Linke").
I don't necessarily disagree with their views, but it helped water the identity of the party down to a level that made it indistinguishable from other liberal groups. Initially the PP also saw some influx from more conservative parties, which created an unstable equilibrium. Now it's just participating around in the usual left-wing infighting (vegans vs vegetarians, feminists vs egalitarians, and so on).
I think part of the reason is that Germans expect parties to cover more than "one issue" (even if that issue is as broad as the entire concept of "an open information infrastructure with a transparent government and strong personal privacy"), so there was an early effort to create a "full programme" covering virtually anything. We'd probably be better off if we had specialised interest groups instead of shrinkwrapped parties. But good luck making democracy more direct and modular when there is a centuries old legacy that portrays anything other than the existing faction-based system as unconstitutional and therefore evil.
tl;dr: You can't have an organisation where everyone wants to do things differently.