[A1kmm]

Voting yes or no without discussing why doesn't lead to good policy outcomes.

Consensus works far better for policy; 90% of people might read something and think it sounds good, while 10% of people might spot a terrible flaw. Simply voting would let the policy be ratified with the flaw, while in a consensus process the facilitator would let each side present their views, and someone might come up with a proposal that addresses the flaw and satisfies everyone.

Consensus doesn't need 100% agreement, and even when you get down to the most fundamental agreements, people with the same facts who are aware of each others viewpoints can still disagree (at which point the majority view has to win), but the process should continue until that point is reached. This process does require some subjective decision making (e.g. around when consensus has been reached), so it can't yet be fully automated.

[moe]

I'm not a member of the pirate party (so can't speak for them), but I want to avoid fueling concerns with my simplified description of their system.

I don't think their goal is automating the decisions, their goal is to add much needed efficiency and transparency to the process by taking it online.

When you look at their software then it's a web-forum with a purpose-built voting/karma system.

For the first time I (a non-member) can go to the website of a political party, read their discussions, learn who is proposing what, who is voting for what and what the dominating opinions are.

You and I may not agree with their (lack of) positions on various subjects. But, as I understand it, it takes nothing more than an online-registration to join in on a discussion, and to present your own ideas on a level playground.

As far as I am concerned that's an overdue breath of fresh air.

Unless you prefer the state-of-the-art; backroom-politics with an "old boys club" calling the shots...