6 ms·

Fast forward to next week: "The White House announces a new threshold of 500,000 signatures before it will respond to online petitions." I was initially enthu

by jobu 14y ago

Fast forward to next week: "The White House announces a new threshold of 500,000 signatures before it will respond to online petitions." I was initially enthusiastic about these online petitions, but it doesn't seem like any of them have had an effect.

Nursie 14y ago
Are they new? We've had them in the UK starting from about 7 or 8 years ago, unsure if we still do. All that ever happened when one reached the 'must get a response' threshold was some staffer would write a couple of quick sentences about how they weren't going to do whatever the thing was, and how you were wrong for wanting it. Useless exercise all round.
- ratherbefuddled 14y ago
  Actually in the UK anything getting 100k signatures is considered for debate in the House of Commons. You can see a list of debates that began in this manner (warning, pdf) here: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/backbench-business/Outcomes%20of%20e-petitions.pdf http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/backbe...
  - Nursie 14y ago
    Is that new? Under Blair/Brown it was a waste of time and I've mostly been out of the country since then.
bjustin 14y ago
Now come on, the reason they raised the bar from 25,000 to 100,000 is to keep up with the site's increasing popularity. They could have set the bar to 100,000 at the site's launch instead of 5,000, but no petitions would have reached the threshold. As for petitions actually having results, I imagine they are the weakest form of lobbying possible. The executive branch sees them and that is all.
- dguaraglia 14y ago
  Yep. Unfortunately you can't counter voices with fat checks and campaign contributions. That's a shame, to be honest.
- frostmatthew 14y ago
  Instead of setting a hard number (that requires adjustments) they should change it to responding to the top X petitions with the most signatures each month.
  - xur17 14y ago
    I disagree. Setting a hard number gives a threshold for people to fight for, and allows for a variable number of issues to make it to the top each month. It gives people a number to push for.
ajross 14y ago
What kind of effect were you expecting? The president promises to do whatever you want as long as you get N "signatures" on a weakly authenticated website? Even if you got those N people to all show up in person at the White House door, wrapping policy around the desires of a vocal minority is not a valid or just way to structure a government. They promised to respond, which is about all they can promise. And this gives them a reasonable metric for how many voters care about an issue, which is a good thing. And they can probably even infer some demographic data from the results, which is another good thing. Basically this is a tool to better inform policy decisions, and the evidence is that it's "working". If you were expecting more then I think your hopes were a little unfounded.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  > Basically this is a tool to better inform policy decisions No, it is actually a safety valve. If the public gets a little too agitated about anything they can go sign a petition to let of some steam. This petition site furthers couch-potato politics; it enables people to 'do their bit' without actually moving their ass. It neutralizes those who are naturally prone to apathy already.
  - ajross 14y ago
    Fair enough. Let's just agree to disagree on that. Your explanation is a bit too far on the "been reading a bit too much dystopian pulp" side of the spectrum. To argue that the practice of policy is cynical and easily corrupted is a truism. To say that the white house deliberately threw up a petition system to actively "neutralize" inconvenient opinions is just ridiculous, sorry. The white house staff are people just like you and I, and they care about many of the same things you do and truly want to do the right thing in the face of many competing interests. Don't turn them into Orwellian villains, it's not helpful.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      The less dystopic version of my interpretation is that the site is just a way of keeping people happy, rather than "neutralized". Does that seem so implausible to you? > The white house staff are people just like you and I See, that realization is what enables me to believe they would make a petition site just to keep people happy. It is something rather frequently seen in the "real world" from "normal people" (see: suggestion boxes in the breakroom at work), and is exactly the sort of thing I could see myself doing. Hell, I have done it. Have someone that is mad at you? Let them vent for a while until they calm down, then tell them why they are wrong. This sort of tactic isn't unique bizarre super-villian behavior. It is standard bullshit. If the intent were completely pure, merely to educate, they wouldn't have people perform a meaningless action before they got their cookie. You don't get that far in politics by being clueless about how to gauge public interest in a topic without resorting to an online tally of interest. That is simply inconceivable.
knowaveragejoe 14y ago
I'm not sure what people are expecting. All the petitions guarantee is a response from the WH, not action.
scarmig 14y ago
Hell, 40,000 people are demonstrating on the National Mall about climate change/Keystone XL, getting arrested, and the Obama administration doesn't give a damn. Why the hell would anyone think 100,000 "signatures" on an online petition site would make a difference?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- jacoblyles 14y ago
  Obviously there's other political considerations going on besides demonstration size. The March for Life draws ~300,000 people every year, but I doubt the Obama administration changes its position on abortion anytime soon.
marcia17 14y ago
Well, they've done a good job at ignoring the subject matter even for those petitions which elicited a response. No reason to suggest they'll do anything different this time...
jacoblyles 14y ago
I'm keeping track of people who are actually doing politics in Silicon Valley, as well as running a group of my own (http://www.meetup.com/Politihacks-of-Silicon-Valley/ http://www.meetup.com/Politihacks-of-Silicon-Valley/). Outside of politihacks, these guys seem interesting: http://engine.is/ http://engine.is/
rgbrenner 14y ago
"but it doesn't seem like any of them have had an effect." 100,000 out of 300,000,000 people. What effect do you imagine it should have? If you really want to give these petitions some weight, they should raise the threshold to 150,000,000. And there should be some way of letting people without computers sign it too. Maybe we could have places where people come to sign the petition. But that sounds like a big undertaking. Maybe we could gather several petitions and let people sign the ones they like, every say 4 years.. maybe with a smaller event in-between. And the results should be counted, and then the government forced to do what is decided. Hmmm... If only there was something like that. That would be awesome.
- devcpp 14y ago
  You're thinking of referendums. A petition is a small number of people pissed about something that not everyone may be interested in. I'm sure my grandparents have never heard of Aaron Swartz and don't know what "jailbreaking" means, so it makes no sense to make them take a decision.
  - rgbrenner 14y ago
    my post was tongue-in-cheek... We have elections. Demanding that a petition from 100,000 people override the results of an election is ridiculous. The administration is responding to the petitions with their position -- I think that's about all they have the right to expect.
duncan_bayne 14y ago
> I was initially enthusiastic about these online petitions Really? I'm honestly surprised to find anyone who is genuinely surprised to discover State malfeasance these days. Did you really, honestly, hand-on-heart believe that these petitions would change anything? I think it was P. J. O'Rourke who opined that if voting could change anything, it'd be outlawed.

by jobu 14y ago

Nursie 14y ago

Are they new? We've had them in the UK starting from about 7 or 8 years ago, unsure if we still do. All that ever happened when one reached the 'must get a response' threshold was some staffer would write a couple of quick sentences about how they weren't going to do whatever the thing was, and how you were wrong for wanting it. Useless exercise all round.

ratherbefuddled 14y ago
Actually in the UK anything getting 100k signatures is considered for debate in the House of Commons. You can see a list of debates that began in this manner (warning, pdf) here: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/backbench-business/Outcomes%20of%20e-petitions.pdf http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/backbe...
- Nursie 14y ago
  Is that new? Under Blair/Brown it was a waste of time and I've mostly been out of the country since then.

bjustin 14y ago

Now come on, the reason they raised the bar from 25,000 to 100,000 is to keep up with the site's increasing popularity. They could have set the bar to 100,000 at the site's launch instead of 5,000, but no petitions would have reached the threshold. As for petitions actually having results, I imagine they are the weakest form of lobbying possible. The executive branch sees them and that is all.

dguaraglia 14y ago
Yep. Unfortunately you can't counter voices with fat checks and campaign contributions. That's a shame, to be honest.
frostmatthew 14y ago
Instead of setting a hard number (that requires adjustments) they should change it to responding to the top X petitions with the most signatures each month.
- xur17 14y ago
  I disagree. Setting a hard number gives a threshold for people to fight for, and allows for a variable number of issues to make it to the top each month. It gives people a number to push for.

ajross 14y ago

What kind of effect were you expecting? The president promises to do whatever you want as long as you get N "signatures" on a weakly authenticated website? Even if you got those N people to all show up in person at the White House door, wrapping policy around the desires of a vocal minority is not a valid or just way to structure a government. They promised to respond, which is about all they can promise. And this gives them a reasonable metric for how many voters care about an issue, which is a good thing. And they can probably even infer some demographic data from the results, which is another good thing. Basically this is a tool to better inform policy decisions, and the evidence is that it's "working". If you were expecting more then I think your hopes were a little unfounded.

jlgreco 14y ago
> Basically this is a tool to better inform policy decisions No, it is actually a safety valve. If the public gets a little too agitated about anything they can go sign a petition to let of some steam. This petition site furthers couch-potato politics; it enables people to 'do their bit' without actually moving their ass. It neutralizes those who are naturally prone to apathy already.
- ajross 14y ago
  Fair enough. Let's just agree to disagree on that. Your explanation is a bit too far on the "been reading a bit too much dystopian pulp" side of the spectrum. To argue that the practice of policy is cynical and easily corrupted is a truism. To say that the white house deliberately threw up a petition system to actively "neutralize" inconvenient opinions is just ridiculous, sorry. The white house staff are people just like you and I, and they care about many of the same things you do and truly want to do the right thing in the face of many competing interests. Don't turn them into Orwellian villains, it's not helpful.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    The less dystopic version of my interpretation is that the site is just a way of keeping people happy, rather than "neutralized". Does that seem so implausible to you? > The white house staff are people just like you and I See, that realization is what enables me to believe they would make a petition site just to keep people happy. It is something rather frequently seen in the "real world" from "normal people" (see: suggestion boxes in the breakroom at work), and is exactly the sort of thing I could see myself doing. Hell, I have done it. Have someone that is mad at you? Let them vent for a while until they calm down, then tell them why they are wrong. This sort of tactic isn't unique bizarre super-villian behavior. It is standard bullshit. If the intent were completely pure, merely to educate, they wouldn't have people perform a meaningless action before they got their cookie. You don't get that far in politics by being clueless about how to gauge public interest in a topic without resorting to an online tally of interest. That is simply inconceivable.

knowaveragejoe 14y ago

I'm not sure what people are expecting. All the petitions guarantee is a response from the WH, not action.

scarmig 14y ago

Hell, 40,000 people are demonstrating on the National Mall about climate change/Keystone XL, getting arrested, and the Obama administration doesn't give a damn. Why the hell would anyone think 100,000 "signatures" on an online petition site would make a difference?

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jacoblyles 14y ago
Obviously there's other political considerations going on besides demonstration size. The March for Life draws ~300,000 people every year, but I doubt the Obama administration changes its position on abortion anytime soon.

marcia17 14y ago

Well, they've done a good job at ignoring the subject matter even for those petitions which elicited a response. No reason to suggest they'll do anything different this time...

jacoblyles 14y ago

I'm keeping track of people who are actually doing politics in Silicon Valley, as well as running a group of my own (http://www.meetup.com/Politihacks-of-Silicon-Valley/ http://www.meetup.com/Politihacks-of-Silicon-Valley/). Outside of politihacks, these guys seem interesting: http://engine.is/ http://engine.is/

rgbrenner 14y ago

"but it doesn't seem like any of them have had an effect." 100,000 out of 300,000,000 people. What effect do you imagine it should have? If you really want to give these petitions some weight, they should raise the threshold to 150,000,000. And there should be some way of letting people without computers sign it too. Maybe we could have places where people come to sign the petition. But that sounds like a big undertaking. Maybe we could gather several petitions and let people sign the ones they like, every say 4 years.. maybe with a smaller event in-between. And the results should be counted, and then the government forced to do what is decided. Hmmm... If only there was something like that. That would be awesome.

devcpp 14y ago
You're thinking of referendums. A petition is a small number of people pissed about something that not everyone may be interested in. I'm sure my grandparents have never heard of Aaron Swartz and don't know what "jailbreaking" means, so it makes no sense to make them take a decision.
- rgbrenner 14y ago
  my post was tongue-in-cheek... We have elections. Demanding that a petition from 100,000 people override the results of an election is ridiculous. The administration is responding to the petitions with their position -- I think that's about all they have the right to expect.

duncan_bayne 14y ago

> I was initially enthusiastic about these online petitions Really? I'm honestly surprised to find anyone who is genuinely surprised to discover State malfeasance these days. Did you really, honestly, hand-on-heart believe that these petitions would change anything? I think it was P. J. O'Rourke who opined that if voting could change anything, it'd be outlawed.