Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People

whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 139 posts

Re: Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People

#71

Post by entropy_ »

cheald wrote: post #69
city41 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like their goal is to maintain a threshold such that x petitions get responded to, where x is a number they can manage and afford. I highly doubt x is actually zero, so they will probably adjust the threshold in the future if needed.

Why not just say "We'll respond to the top X petitions per 30 days" then?

I'm guessing that's because saying something like "X signatures needed" creates an easier metric for people to know when a petition will get responded to.

"Top X/month" would assume that they would choose a time of the month when they would compare and respond to those which is probably not the way things work(they respond to things as they get around to them, whenever that is and as fast as possible).

Re: Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People

#72

Post by jlgreco »

milesf wrote: post #55
samstave wrote: post #36

I'm of the opinion that this is in direct response to how quickly 25,000 signatures were raised to fire Ortiz. How would they like it if the citizens of the US took the same tact: "Hey Obama administration, I'd like to inform you that I am choosing a different tax bracket arbitrarily with the same level of authority as you show me respect as a citizen."

Or maybe it was in response to the petition to build a Death Star =] petition: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/secure-resources-a... response: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition-resp...

Maybe there should be a new petition to build the Starship Enterprise so the 100k limit can hit by something silly too. Another petition that screams "We know this is a joke to you."

Re: Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People

#73

Post by geuis »

I hate to be a cynic but the timing seems too coincidental with the death of Aaron and the petition to remove Carmen Ortiz from office. She was nominated to her position by the President, so there is an assumption (perhaps invalid) of close ties to the administration.

Re: Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People

#74

Post by siganakis »

geuis wrote: post #73

I hate to be a cynic but the timing seems too coincidental with the death of Aaron and the petition to remove Carmen Ortiz from office. She was nominated to her position by the President, so there is an assumption (perhaps invalid) of close ties to the administration.

From the article:

"This new threshold applies only to petitions created from this point forward and is not retroactively applied to ones that already exist."

So the Ortiz petition will be unaffected.

Re: Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People

#76

Post by olefoo »

kemiller wrote: post #51
cheald wrote: post #26

Wow, 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…

Once a given petition crosses the threshold, there is much less pressure to recruit more signatures. Without data on the rate of new signers before and after the threshold, I can't prove it, but I'd bet this will not stop serious petitions.

By coincidence, I've been collecting just such a data set since Saturday afternoon. I suspect that in the case of the petition I'm interested in, the fact that it had almost no "earned media" before crossing the threshold is why the signing rate appeared to speed up once it had crossed the threshold.

Re: Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People

#78

Post by pdonis »

sprobertson wrote: post #20
Firehed wrote: post #8

I wish there was more resolution along the x-axis; I'd really when that inflection point occurred and what triggered it. There's exponential growth, and there's literal overnight success, and this appears to be the latter. Also, generic vague whining about the government only pretending to care.

I did a quick search and it looks like it might be election related: "... eight different petitions requesting secession following the outcome of the November presidential election. The petition for the state of North Carolina to secede from the union earned more 31,835 signatures, while South Carolina's had just over 26,000." http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Official-White-House-response...

Which begs the question: why are people petitioning the White House to have their states secede from the Union? That's just stupid on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin.

Re: Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People

#79

Post by tedunangst »

cheald wrote: post #69
city41 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like their goal is to maintain a threshold such that x petitions get responded to, where x is a number they can manage and afford. I highly doubt x is actually zero, so they will probably adjust the threshold in the future if needed.

Why not just say "We'll respond to the top X petitions per 30 days" then?

Conspiracy theories about why your petition is always the X+1 petition.

Re: Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People

#80

Post by zevyoura »

miked wrote: post #53
rprasad wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For conflicting evidence, I would point to the California initiative process, which is the reason California's government is nonfunctional and almost bankrupt right now.

California's government is nonfunctional and almost bankrupt right now because California is a One-Party State, and that party likes to buy itself votes with other people's money and then get people like you to blame everything wrong on someone else. Give the Entitled Party credit: they've destroyed the state's finacial situation, but hey, they've got a total lock on the state. So its all been a big success on the on…

This is an extremely simplistic and inaccurate view of California's political problems, which are in fact in large part related to initiatives that passed through California's direct democracy process. Proposition 13 is among the most significant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978...
Post reply on HN