The Swedish Piratpartiet showed that success was possible in the European Elections of 2009, getting 25% of the under-30 vote and two Europarliament seats out of Sweden's 20. That was the proof of concept. We failed to convert these votes into votes in the general elections a year later because of a very simple reason - that we didn't have a full political platform. Answering "we have no opinion on that issue" for nine out of ten policy questions wasn't good enough. People wouldn't vote for parties that didn't, not in a general election, and there was no way the Piratpartiet could expand its policies by the necessary magnitude between the 2009 and 2010 elections. This was a painful but necessary and educational experience in growth pains. (The Piratpartiet is now in full swing in expanding to a full policy platform ahead of the next elections in 2014.)

The German Piratenpartei, meanwhile, benefited hugely from the Swedish proof-of-concept in 2009 and climbed from 1% to 2% in the three months between the European and the German elections, with all the media spotlight from a new political movement making its way to front row center, and this result also rendered them substantial funding. Then, the Piratenpartei had two years to broaden their scope - from the fall of 2009 to the Berlin elections of 2011 - and pulled it off beautifully, being rewarded with parliamentary seats as a result.

So, let's return to our five-step plan. We didn't get into the Swedish parliament in 2010. But Sweden is not a country of any particular political significance. Exaggerating just slightly, it is a frozen country the size of a shoebox on top of the Arctic Circle. In this plan, the Swedish parliament in step three was never meant as anything more than an igniting spark.

what would the greens not get on board with the PP? what's to lose? make the PP green, then bingo...

"It's very hard to see what is kept invisible" Roseanne Barr