The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian)

Good summary/interpretation! It's not about whether geeks can be brought together to present a common platform, although you've summarised why this isn't easily done, but whether they are inclined to engage in politics in order to bring issues related to freedoms and liberties (although that does suggest a certain shared perspective) to the attention of those who represent them.

Of course, the political systems in the UK and US in particular (and in most other countries to a significant extent) don't really lend themselves to the representation of the sophisticated mixture of views of the average voter, and as you point out, people don't feel comfortable about voting for a party that has strong opinions only on certain topics: they want to (or are obliged to) feel represented on the headline topics, too, unless they are completely disillusioned with the other parties, and if a narrowly focused party takes a stance on, say, economic policy, the risk is that the voter base will become fragmented as those who disagree with that stance try and find a second political home for their concerns.

But encouraging people to voice their opinions is still worthwhile: if people engage with parties that have completely different views on the usual mainstream topics, if they all start to hear the same concerns about technology being used to curtail civil liberties, then there's a chance that the desired effect will be achieved without needing a single party to gain a majority and then implement the necessary policy.

In short, one can play the (regrettably) secondary status of such issues to one's advantage by informing politicians who are potentially open-minded, persuading them to take a position that is not necessarily in immediate conflict with party policy.