---
authors: []
categories: []
date: 2019-05-19 00:00:00
summary: Observation of a real discussion problem in pirate party regarding policy
  precedence flow and policy development tools. The discussion involves a member,
  Mitra, wanting a specific policy stance due to a negative ranking of the pirate
  party in environmental policy by the scorecard. However, other party members argue
  that their current policy already broadly covers the concern and that the scorecard
  did not consider this.
tags:
- policy precedence flow
- policy development tools
- discussion problem
- pirate party
- environmental policy
- scorecard
- climate change
- environment policy
title: Parties needs a method for policy precedence flow with policy development tools
---

# Parties needs a method for policy precedence flow with policy development tools. Observation of a real discussion problem included

In this discussion in pirate party, it appears that [mitra](https://discuss.pirateparty.org.au/u/mitra) wants specific policy stance, due to https://www.environment.vote/scorecard ranking pirate party as negative in environmental policy.

However pirate party members countered that their current policy already broadly covers her concern. And that the scorecard did not take this into account, instead trying to look for specific answers.

https://discuss.pirateparty.org.au/t/climate-change-and-environment-policy/148/30

A policy development tool could perhaps address this dynamic by relying on how the law covers many situation without having specific wording for every situation via the usage of "precedence".

What's your thought?

Maybe there needs to be a way to have a mindmap of how each party policy flows onto specific decision. Where if a policy changes, the connection become fainter, to indicate that we need to revaluate if it still hold for a specific question.

<!-- more -->