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

121–130 of 139 posts

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

#121

Post by anonymouz »

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."

I think that's a bit paranoid. I think it is simply because there are now loads of petitions, often at least partially redundant, that easily reach the 25k threshold. To answer all of those they'd have to expend an unreasonable amount of time and they want a more reasonable threshold to filter out those petitions that really matter to people.

For example, if I click on "popular petitions" right now, there are at least 5 petitions about the Westboro Baptist Chruch with more than 25k votes, and some of these are outright duplicates. Repealing Obamacare seems to be another popular topic.

Basically it seems that, because it is relatively easy to vote, you can find 25k people on the Internet to vote for more or less anything, overwhelming the administration with petitions that wouldn't actually find much support in the population.

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

#122

Post by InclinedPlane »

pekk wrote: post #104
zainny wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is one important number missing from the infographics in this blog post. Difference Made: 0

Do you think it is better not to provide any website for registering opinions?

Of course. Without it people would be forced to contact their congressional reps, their senators, their local law makers, send letters directly to the president, and get involved with the media. All of which are precisely the sorts of ways you can actually effect change.

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

#123

Post by barry-cotter »

tokenadult wrote: post #10

The 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.

When was the last time direct democracy was actually tried? I can't think of any examples. I don't disagree with your conclusion; any direct democracy substantially above the Dunbar number is likely to have a fairly short period of mob rule followed by adopting some other form of governent once the civil war/rioting stops.

We have been furnished a more perfect example of democracy than the USA though, one that's a lot closer to a direct democracy, that works wonderfully. And they're not joking when they talk about the people being sovereign.

All hail Switzerland!

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

#124

Post by barry-cotter »

anigbrowl wrote: post #44
mtgx wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Another poster has said the same thing, but it's worth repeating: take a long hard look at California first. We have that here and it hasn't really worked out very well. It would be worth your while to visit CA in the month before an election, and look at the incredibly low quality of the political advocacy here (bullshit 30 second TV attack ads on every conceivable topic). The ballot pamphlet mailed to all Californi…

California is much, much too big for direct democracy to have a Hope in hell of working. Representative democracy has enough problems running it. California is too big for it is not a killer argument against direct democracy.

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

#125

Post by olefoo »

SCAQTony wrote: post #100

Well, I find the timing suspicious. I know that gun enthusiasts have been creating dozens of them as of late and as silly as some of them aree, they are meeting the 25,000 signature goal. The "fire Carmen Ortiz" took less than three-days to reach fruition and now that the White house has devalued the 25,000 number, I hope the petition can reach 250,000 by it's end date to really send a message.

The Carmen Ortiz petition passed the threshold for an answer before the requirement was raised.

It's right now (early Wednesday morning pacific time) crawling up toward 35,000 at the current rate there's a good chance that it will cross the 100,000 mark before 11 February.

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

#126

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #122
pekk wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think it is better not to provide any website for registering opinions?

Of course. Without it people would be forced to contact their congressional reps, their senators, their local law makers, send letters directly to the president, and get involved with the media. All of which are precisely the sorts of ways you can actually effect change.

With an increase in effort required is there also a corresponding decrease in people who follow through?

Could you not create a petition and then heavily promote it to gain media attention? I mean, look at the Death Star petition. That made the regular news everywhere.

I think this is just another avenue to voice your opinion. Anyone serious about effecting change is going to use all possible forms of media to do it. Anyone not serious would have done nothing petition website or not.

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

#127

Post by [deleted] »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #122
pekk wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think it is better not to provide any website for registering opinions?

Of course. Without it people would be forced to contact their congressional reps, their senators, their local law makers, send letters directly to the president, and get involved with the media. All of which are precisely the sorts of ways you can actually effect change.

[deleted]

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

#128

Post by alexkus »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #122
pekk wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think it is better not to provide any website for registering opinions?

Of course. Without it people would be forced to contact their congressional reps, their senators, their local law makers, send letters directly to the president, and get involved with the media. All of which are precisely the sorts of ways you can actually effect change.

Indeed, I've always thought of them as a cunning way of soaking up some of the pressure.

The UK's version ( http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/ ) goes a step further as you have to provide your name and a full address, so regularly signing petitions will be giving the Government a nice set of data to mine to provide a political profile based on views on certain issues...

The site says "This information will not be used for any purpose other than in relation to the e-petition." but that doesn't fill me with confidence that they can't do mining...

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

#129

Post by rschmitty »

anigbrowl wrote: post #44
mtgx wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Another poster has said the same thing, but it's worth repeating: take a long hard look at California first. We have that here and it hasn't really worked out very well. It would be worth your while to visit CA in the month before an election, and look at the incredibly low quality of the political advocacy here (bullshit 30 second TV attack ads on every conceivable topic). The ballot pamphlet mailed to all Californi…

none of that is isolated to CA by any means

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

#130

Post by hakaaaak »

tkahn6 wrote: post #101
hakaaak wrote: post #49

Here is the reality. Serious concerns will get few votes. Things such as building a death star that are completely stupid and not serious get lots of votes. So what this is really saying is, "We're going to raise the threshold so we won't have to waste effort replying to your death star petitions, and btw we don't give a fuck about the little man and never did. Fuck you. Case closed. Now if we can get the media to sp…

The change in policy means that instead of needing 0.013% of the voting age population to sign your petition you need 0.052%. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28+25%2C000+people+%2F... http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28+100%2C000+people+%2... Please leave the hyperbole and fatalistic rhetoric on other sites.

Killed my other account last night as I swore again I'd stop posting to HN... that didn't work I suppose.

Do you not understand that raising the threshold 4x is going to reduce the chance of the little man getting his concern addressed by a factor of 4?

My point was that the petitions I've seen on that site getting to the top are too often just joke petitions, and yet there are many legitimate petitions that don't get enough votes to meet the thresholds but should be addressed. Joke petitions have given them a reason to not address serious issues, and the more the threshold gets raised, the less of a chance that serious issues will get addressed.

If you seriously think that you can get 0.52% of the voting age population to sign an online petition, think about how much money and time both political parties had to spend just trying to get people to vote for president and how they were pouring millions into swaying 1% of the population. 0.013% vs. 0.52% is a HUGE difference even though it might not seem like it.

Post reply on HN