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

131–139 of 139 posts

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

#131

Post by brazzy »

martingordon wrote: post #33

The first thing I thought when I saw this post was that it was a response to the success of the Carmen Ortiz petition. I understand the change doesn't apply retroactively, but it would help future officials face less public scrutiny from these petitions. The growth over the last two months were clearly due to the election and I doubt that that type of growth will continue. We will likely see a drop back down to previ…

> The first thing I thought when I saw this post was that it was a response to the success of the Carmen Ortiz petition.

That's because it was the big topic in the HN echo chamber recently.

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

#132

Post by brazzy »

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."

Reality check: outside the tech news echo chamber, the Swartz case and everything related is a pretty minor thing.

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

#133

Post by flyinRyan »

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?

It might be interesting for an external party to have such a website but it's counter productive for the government to have one because clicking a link on an online petition accomplishes literally nothing.

How invested you are in an issue is displayed by how much work you're willing to put into doing something about it. Online petition is practically zero work so it's zero worth, regardless of how many people click what.

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

#134

Post by flyinRyan »

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 I look across the first world, the US government doesn't stand out to me as the best. In fact, it does stand out to me as one of the worst (at least in my personal experience). So I don't know how much should I care what men said who, IMO, have been proven wrong.

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

#135

Post by tkahn6 »

hakaaaak wrote: post #130
tkahn6 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ge…

0.052%

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

#136

Post by afarrell »

Firehed wrote: post #111
afarrell wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be great, though you would need some way to tie people's accounts to their residences, which would require them to work with boards of elections give out the elections with the voter registration receipts.

I fail to see a problem with voicing your opinion to an elected official, even if that person is not representing you. Especially when one state making a decision can set a precedent for others. Although I do think that the votes should be tied to location, even if other locations are allowed in. I think a ZIP code is enough here; it's a letter, not a vote.

Why should a representative care about the opinions of people who aren't voting for her or contributing to her campaign? There are lots of opinionated people on the internet.

I simply picked the board of elections because they already are entrusted with the capacity to verify that a certain person lives in a certain ward or district. I suspect zip codes would not be fine-grained enough for local government fora, where this would be most useful.

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

#137

Post by anigbrowl »

barry-cotter wrote: post #124
anigbrowl wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well it sort-of works, just not all that well. I don't buy the size argument because the same pros and cons exist at the municipal and county level - some stupid propositions do well, some smart ones do poorly, too few people are clear on exactly what they're voting for.

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

#138

Post by Firehed »

afarrell wrote: post #136
Firehed wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see a problem with voicing your opinion to an elected official, even if that person is not representing you. Especially when one state making a decision can set a precedent for others. Although I do think that the votes should be tied to location, even if other locations are allowed in. I think a ZIP code is enough here; it's a letter, not a vote.

Why should a representative care about the opinions of people who aren't voting for her or contributing to her campaign? There are lots of opinionated people on the internet. I simply picked the board of elections because they already are entrusted with the capacity to verify that a certain person lives in a certain ward or district. I suspect zip codes would not be fine-grained enough for local government fora, wher…

They don't have to weight everything equally, but as I previously stated, politicians that actually want to do good and not just get re-elected (I hear some exist) might actually care about their precedent-setting decision and how it will impact non-residents.

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

#139

Post by afarrell »

Firehed wrote: post #138
afarrell wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should a representative care about the opinions of people who aren't voting for her or contributing to her campaign? There are lots of opinionated people on the internet. I simply picked the board of elections because they already are entrusted with the capacity to verify that a certain person lives in a certain ward or district. I suspect zip codes would not be fine-grained enough for local government fora, wher…

They don't have to weight everything equally, but as I previously stated, politicians that actually want to do good and not just get re-elected (I hear some exist) might actually care about their precedent-setting decision and how it will impact non-residents.

I think there is certainly value in outside voices. Journalists and bloggers play that role now. I guess the issue I have is that any given district could get suddenly swamped by outsiders. Why not have it be the case that constituents would bring that voice in by linking to their post?

One idea that I have some sympathy toward is making the representatives responsible for moderating the fora as they see fit. They would then be judged at the ballot box if they pissed everyone off...or they would really skillful at creating false consensus.

Post reply on HN