"The White House announces a new threshold of 500,000 signatures before it will respond to online petitions."
I was initially enthusiastic about these online petitions, but it doesn't seem like any of them have had an effect.
They promised to respond, which is about all they can promise. And this gives them a reasonable metric for how many voters care about an issue, which is a good thing. And they can probably even infer some demographic data from the results, which is another good thing.
Basically this is a tool to better inform policy decisions, and the evidence is that it's "working". If you were expecting more then I think your hopes were a little unfounded.
No, it is actually a safety valve. If the public gets a little too agitated about anything they can go sign a petition to let of some steam. This petition site furthers couch-potato politics; it enables people to 'do their bit' without actually moving their ass. It neutralizes those who are naturally prone to apathy already.
To argue that the practice of policy is cynical and easily corrupted is a truism. To say that the white house deliberately threw up a petition system to actively "neutralize" inconvenient opinions is just ridiculous, sorry. The white house staff are people just like you and I, and they care about many of the same things you do and truly want to do the right thing in the face of many competing interests. Don't turn them into Orwellian villains, it's not helpful.
> The white house staff are people just like you and I
See, that realization is what enables me to believe they would make a petition site just to keep people happy. It is something rather frequently seen in the "real world" from "normal people" (see: suggestion boxes in the breakroom at work), and is exactly the sort of thing I could see myself doing. Hell, I have done it. Have someone that is mad at you? Let them vent for a while until they calm down, then tell them why they are wrong.
This sort of tactic isn't unique bizarre super-villian behavior. It is standard bullshit.
If the intent were completely pure, merely to educate, they wouldn't have people perform a meaningless action before they got their cookie. You don't get that far in politics by being clueless about how to gauge public interest in a topic without resorting to an online tally of interest. That is simply inconceivable.
An internet petition is just a number and a paragraph that people clicked a thumbs up on. Nobody would ever care unless those people actually started voting differently, and by differently, that means something other than just going across the isle and shaking hands with their neighbor politician in the other camp.
It is the same reason you don't argue with businesses with petition letters, you argue with them with their bottom line. If you are in a state of demanding something, the other party has a power and influence you don't, and you need some pull in the relationship or else you will be walked all over.
Heh. And here you are, in said forums! Somewhat perfecting the voice of righteous judgement! Bravo, but no. I see what you came to represent here, but if you think trumpeting loudly some bad-ass anti-establishment intellectual philosophy while standing on the tiny issue of "the right to cell-phone-unlocking-regardless-of-lender-contract" as a basis for your purist reasoning, then you sir/ma'am, live in a first world overrun with problems of the same degree! There is wisdom in "choosing your battles," and this, my dear zanny, is not the one. Trust me.
edit: alternatively, I'm finding some non-existent sarcasm.
The fact of the matter is their aren't any looming issues facing the US that are likely to result in widespread riots today. But let's assume we are back in the 1950s during the Civil Rights Movement, I can't imagine a non-reply to a "We the People" petition doing anything to quell the Civil Rights Movement. Frankly, I suspect it would just further fan the flames.
The only way I could see this working as a "safety value" is if people confuse signing an online petition with actually voting. Something I find unlikely. Now if the government uses the site inform their opinions of the populace and shape their actions this could influence policy but only if it has been shown that if you oppose a petition than you will get voted out next election. The elderly are great at doing this which is why no one touches Social Security and Medicare. A lot of people think the Internet is a representative sample of the general population, and if something is massively popular online than the fact the the government isn't doing is means that they are usurping the will of the people.
I don't see online petitions as very helpful in any way.
As for petitions actually having results, I imagine they are the weakest form of lobbying possible. The executive branch sees them and that is all.
All that ever happened when one reached the 'must get a response' threshold was some staffer would write a couple of quick sentences about how they weren't going to do whatever the thing was, and how you were wrong for wanting it.
Useless exercise all round.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/backbe...
100,000 out of 300,000,000 people. What effect do you imagine it should have?
If you really want to give these petitions some weight, they should raise the threshold to 150,000,000. And there should be some way of letting people without computers sign it too. Maybe we could have places where people come to sign the petition. But that sounds like a big undertaking. Maybe we could gather several petitions and let people sign the ones they like, every say 4 years.. maybe with a smaller event in-between. And the results should be counted, and then the government forced to do what is decided.
Hmmm... If only there was something like that. That would be awesome.
We have elections. Demanding that a petition from 100,000 people override the results of an election is ridiculous. The administration is responding to the petitions with their position -- I think that's about all they have the right to expect.
Really? I'm honestly surprised to find anyone who is genuinely surprised to discover State malfeasance these days.
Did you really, honestly, hand-on-heart believe that these petitions would change anything?
I think it was P. J. O'Rourke who opined that if voting could change anything, it'd be outlawed.