Why exactly are they raising the signature threshold? It doesn't say.
"Stop bothering us."
Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People
21–30 of 139 posts
Re: Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People
#22Thought I couldn't be less disappointed in the Obama administration but they don't cease to fail me. I think the first new petition should be to require petitions to return to 25K threshold.
Why are you disappointed? Was it because they launched the site or because they raised the threshold? Since there has never been another site like this the effective threshold for past administrations was infinite. I think 100,000 is better than nothing.
Re: Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People
#23Because they'd like to be less responsive to citizen concerns? 10,000,000 / 25,000 = 400 responses/yr. I'd like to believe our government could deliver slightly more than one well-considered response per day.
what is the 25k here?
That is the old threshold for petitions.
Note that 400 is a strict overestimate if votes were evenly divided between petitions. But some petitions get 2x the vote total, and some don't reach the threshold. So the real number is significantly less. But the trend is clear.
Re: Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People
#24So, what happened some time around late November 2012? EDIT: One possible answer here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5064211
[deleted]
Re: Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People
#25The founders of the United States knew that a representative democracy (what they termed a "republic") has some distinct advantages over direct democracy. This fact was discussed at length in the jointly authored Federalist Papers. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html History shows that this fact is rediscovered in each new generation through hard experience, on a bipartisan basis.
"...this fact"? The only fact here is that the thing you're claiming is a fact actually isn't.
By the way, your celebration of this policy change is especially ironic considering the United States empire is completely buckling under the enormity of its failure as we speak. Right, we're "re-discovering the efficiency of representative democracy" by decreasing accountability...
America's governance system is very complex but it's hardly worth calling democracy in any meaningful use of the term. Money buys political results. Americans overwhelming see this to be the case. The state is made up of only the upper class and exists to serve the interests of the upper class. They run it, not the people in general.
Re: Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People
#26Wow, that infographic is misleading.
http://cl.ly/image/2n1H2Q0z1919
They quote that "162 responses" number right after saying "petitions must receive 100k signatures", when none of those responded to had to have received 100k signatures.
Additionally, 2.1 million signatures (responded to) divided by 162 petitions (responded to) is an average of 12,963 signatures per petition. The largest petition ever - obviously an outlier - received just over 300k. In fact, only one petition ever has cracked the 100k mark: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions/popular/0/2/0
Not only that, but the top three were related to an exceptionally charged issue that was sparked by an absolutely awful tragedy and then catalyzed by an awful group of people whose entire purpose in life is to cause controversy, which hints that outside of another elementary school rampage, nothing will gain the momentum necessary to meet this new threshold. I'd argue that the GMO petition is the first legitimate "issue" petition on that list, and it's nearly 40k signatures short of this new threshold.
This is more or less a guarantee that almost nothing else will reach the threshold necessary to receive a response.
Re: Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People
#27Why exactly are they raising the signature threshold? It doesn't say.
It was explained the first time they raised the treshold [0]:
"The massive participation on We the People means that in the first week over 30 petitions reached 5,000 signatures, the initial threshold to generate an official response from the White House. At our first internal review meeting Friday, two things were clear:
(a) everyone is thrilled about this new challenge and excited to process the first batch, but
(b) this many petitions challenges our ability to offer timely and meaningful responses to petitions in the long term.
[...] This may not be the last time we change the thresholds, both in terms of signatures and amount of time."
So they're admitting that simply throwing more people at the problem won't work in the long run, since petitioners expect meaningful responses from people who are knowledgeable. See Mythical Man-Month [1] and PG's decision to limit the size of the YC W13 class [2].
[0] http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/03/good-problem-have-...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month#The_myth...
Re: Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People
#28So, what happened some time around late November 2012? EDIT: One possible answer here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5064211
Westboro Baptist Church planned a protest of the Sandy Hook funerals. The petitions to denounce or strip the tax exempt status of the group got well over half a million signatures in December.
Re: Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People
#29The founders of the United States knew that a representative democracy (what they termed a "republic") has some distinct advantages over direct democracy. This fact was discussed at length in the jointly authored Federalist Papers. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html History shows that this fact is rediscovered in each new generation through hard experience, on a bipartisan basis.
But that doesn't mean republics can't have more direct democracy elements in them. For example I love the idea of citizens being able to create a referendum (in a certain state, I believe) in Germany. You still have a threshold, so people don't start creating one for all sorts of crazy ideas, but this is a great example of how citizens can help improve the laws in their countries. I think this referendum is usually added to the next election.
Such system obviously need to be fined-tuned to avoid having the population "abuse" them, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be pursued. I think they can be great additions to any democratic republic.
Re: Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People
#30Because they'd like to be less responsive to citizen concerns? 10,000,000 / 25,000 = 400 responses/yr. I'd like to believe our government could deliver slightly more than one well-considered response per day.
> 10,000,000 / 25,000 = 400 responses/yr
Based on the last few months of growth the response rate won't remain static. It's reasonable to assume there will be continued growth, so they need to set the barrier to entry at a practical height.