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

White House raises petition signature threshold to 100K

news.cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 133 posts

Re: White House raises petition signature threshold to 100K

#101

Post by jbooth »

rauljara wrote: post #97
jlangenauer wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an argument that "democracy" doesn't work, it's an argument that the current institutional arrangements aren't really democracy - at least in the sense that the public are actually directly or indirectly governing themselves. Now, in that sense, let's review exactly how "our"[ ] government measures up: Individual citizens or groups of citizens have minimal means of influencing their own government through th…

> Not everyone is from the US, y'know. Incredibly valid point. The angry rant above was hastily written (typos and all) in response to a thread about a change to US public policy. That's my excuse as to why I got it wrong, not an attempt to say that I actually got it right. > The abolition of slavery took a civil war The actual passage of the amendment took an act of democracy, however, that still had to overcome mou…

There's a follow-on effect too, that organizing to get 100k signatures for anything, even the death star petition, creates networks of activists. Some of them stay active afterwards.

Re: White House raises petition signature threshold to 100K

#102

Post by bad_user »

snitko wrote: post #93
rauljara wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies in advance. I am so sick of these democracy doesn't work, the powers that be own us, utterly worthless statements. Worthless is the sense that all they do is justify your own inaction. So many people take the fact the government doesn't work the way they want it to as evidence that democracy doesn't work. It's a fallacy. What they have trouble understanding is that while we may largely agree that certain pr…

Democracy is only good when the majority supports what you think is right. The moment the majority chooses something you dislike, you're done. And it also doesn't cost anything to the majority, because they only have to waste a little time and vote. If, for example, the majority finds it wrong for gay people to marry, it doesn't cost them anything to keep it illegal. In a purely free society, if one group of people w…

I do not agree with you. You're basically advocating for a form of anarchy in which one makes his own law based on how much money he can pay, however in a true anarchy money would have no place. This complicates issues greatly, because without placing a price-tag on value, then all value you create is relative and selling it is the product of opportunity.

This might not be bad, but because of this, even in anarchy the majority wins. Like, if somebody is gay, what would you have them pay to a big mob of people with torches and pitchforks coming for him, a mob who thinks that gays are an abomination? They might not be using the same currency, his created value may not be worth anything to this mob. And since there is no police, who is going to protect him? Remember that he's in a minority after all.

We take many things for granted, but IMHO democracy makes tolerance possible.

Re: White House raises petition signature threshold to 100K

#103

Post by NathanKP »

brudgers wrote: post #59

My first reaction to the announcement was negative: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5064624 But now, I am not so sure. Raising the threshold seems like a sound response to the program gaining traction if the Whitehouse wants it to succeed - closing it down would be the simple response if their goal was not to be bothered. Raising the threshold (a second time) invites people to take the low effort act of signing a…

"Firing the prosecutor expresses anger, but it doesn't seek structural change. Lynch mobs don't."

That was pretty much exactly what I said in a comment on that petition the day it was posted on HN. I received multiple downvotes right away, and things didn't balance out until several days later when the comment finally reached 1 point again.

So I agree that the low threshold makes it too easy for a short term "anger wave" to reach the petition threshold. But I also think that by making the threshold too high you lose the possibility of smaller interest groups getting attention.

Politics is already about the big players, and the giant special interest groups with the millions and millions of dollars to play with. There were already very few successful petitions that actually got responses, now there will be even fewer.

Re: White House raises petition signature threshold to 100K

#104

Post by snitko »

bad_user wrote: post #102
snitko wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy is only good when the majority supports what you think is right. The moment the majority chooses something you dislike, you're done. And it also doesn't cost anything to the majority, because they only have to waste a little time and vote. If, for example, the majority finds it wrong for gay people to marry, it doesn't cost them anything to keep it illegal. In a purely free society, if one group of people w…

I do not agree with you. You're basically advocating for a form of anarchy in which one makes his own law based on how much money he can pay, however in a true anarchy money would have no place. This complicates issues greatly, because without placing a price-tag on value, then all value you create is relative and selling it is the product of opportunity. This might not be bad, but because of this, even in anarchy th…

The notion that in an anarchy you would have no police, courts, currency, and all other important things is a product of a lack of imagination. Simply because there is no government, doesn't mean there is no market for the things a government provides. What government had for a long time is a monopoly for many services and it is precisely the reason why it is so hard for people to imagine how a police or defense could exist without a government.

(There are different types of anarchy theories, btw, anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism being on the two opposite sides of the spectrum).

Re: White House raises petition signature threshold to 100K

#105

Post by sounds »

getsaf wrote: post #96
cjoh wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Petitions are completely ineffective because the citizenry doesn't have enough civic knowledge to ask for the right things. Take for instance, the top one -- "classify the Westboro Baptist Church as a hate group" or the various succession petitions. Is there a federal agency that regulates hate groups? Or classifies who is a hate group and who is not? No. "Hate Group" is a label used by the private NGO sector -- in t…

"Petitions do work. What a lobbyist does is petition the government. They're just professional at it, and why we presume that a developer or a plumber or a chicken farmer should be as good of a lobbyist as a professional lobbyist is, is beyond me." As much as I think lobbying is a great harm to the system, I can't help but wonder. Would it be effective if there were some sort of "Kickstarter" for lobbying that would…

It would probably work.

It wouldn't be as simple as Kickstarter, however:

US public policy already favors the wealthy. (Oligarchy) If the ability to participate in the government was predicated on spending some cash, the system would eventually turn into a Feudal state. This is why poll taxes are outlawed: the government cannot require you to pay to vote.

Re: White House raises petition signature threshold to 100K

#107

Post by marekmroz »

junto wrote: post #40
jlangenauer wrote: post #27

Petitions are encouraged precisely because they're completely ineffective: a safety valve to allow people to believe they're effecting change when in fact nothing is changing. If petitions actually worked, they'd be banned.

> If petitions actually worked, they'd be banned. That statement is so scary, but most likely true.

Sadly this is likely true. Just look at the effectiveness of mass protests and legislation put in place in last 2-3 years to make them illegal (UK, Canada, Poland come to mind).

Re: White House raises petition signature threshold to 100K

#108

Post by robomartin »

Repeat after me:

I will not discuss politics on HN.

I will not discuss politics on HN.

I will not discuss politics on HN.

I will not discuss politics on HN.

I will not discuss politics on HN.

One of my personal guidance statements (I hate resolutions) for this year in order to (a) keep the off-topic noise down and, (b) not engage in debates that are often pointless, can be offensive and end-up not helping anyone or fixing anything.

I am trying hard to stick to this. So far, so good. Although temptation is sometimes great. Almost caved-in a couple of times.

I rather be far more constructive and focus on tech.

Re: White House raises petition signature threshold to 100K

#109

Post by saraid216 »

jlangenauer wrote: post #27

Petitions are encouraged precisely because they're completely ineffective: a safety valve to allow people to believe they're effecting change when in fact nothing is changing. If petitions actually worked, they'd be banned.

> If petitions actually worked, they'd be banned.

By this logic, if your comment was correct, your comment wouldn't exist.

Re: White House raises petition signature threshold to 100K

#110

Post by davidtanner »

SeanLuke wrote: post #67
jessaustin wrote: post #6

Whether the threshold is 100K or 100M, nothing has happened yet as a result of a "successful" petition. Sure, the stupid petitions give them a chance to giggle at the rubes. The most reasonable petitions get essentially the same reaction, however. ["Legalize pot? I think we can guess what they were smoking when they signed that one! Hahahaha!"] As much as I wish it were otherwise, I expect the same for the current "f…

> Whether the threshold is 100K or 100M, nothing has happened yet as a result of a "successful" petition. This isn't true. For example, the White House had been intentionally silent on the issue of SOPA until two petitions pushed it to take a stand, which had a not small impact on the outcome of the legislation. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/14/obama-administrati... > The most reasonable petitions get essent…

It's neither reasonable nor respectful to maintain that cannabis ought to be prohibited.
Post reply on HN