Three Months of Britain's e-Petition System

eldavojohn writes "The idea seems simple. Provide feedback for your government via the internet. If enough people sign a petition, address it. That was the idea when an e-Petition site was launched in Nov 06 for Prime Minister Tony Blair. The BBC is reporting on the million or so petitions that the PM has received since the site went live. While most petitions are rejected or ignored, they have a top ten with one petition having 600,000 signers. Is this a valid way to provide feedback to the government or merely an exercise in keeping the populace happy?"

Comments

it's a homonym

[User 956]

The idea seems simple. Provide feedback for your government via the internet. If enough people sign a petition, address it. That was the idea when an e-Petition site was launched in Nov 06 for Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Well, online wine delivery never really took off in the States, I hope the Brits have better luck.

Validity?

[SeaFox]

Any way one can provide feedback to their government is a valid one. As long as you demonstrate constructive criticism in your method, anything is better than nothing.

The better question is whether the government will take the feedback seriously at all, or if this is like the proverbial comments box that feeds into the building's waste chute.

Re:Validity?

[Anonymous Coward]

There were more than 600,000 people protesting in Britain at the start of the Iraq war.
It went ahead anyway.

Re:Validity?

[rm999]

Good point, feedback is always a good thing; I guess the important question is whether this is the correct way of doing it. Politicians are very busy, and don't like their time being wasted. If the system is not taken seriously, like a lot of other online petition sites, it will lose effectiveness and just waste time.

If this does take off, and becomes the main way for the people to bring up complaints, it will give more voice to people who are tech savvy - not exactly the ideal in a democratic republic (or whatever Britain is).

I like the idea though. I wish more American politicians embraced something like this.

Re:Validity?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Blockquoth the AC:

There were more than 600,000 people protesting in Britain at the start of the Iraq war. It went ahead anyway.

That's true, but ignoring a couple of million protesters has effectively brought down Tony Blair and neutered the New Labour government. I can't think of a single high-profile, high-impact change they've got through since then.

The nastiest thing in the works is probably the whole ID cards and National Identity Register policy, for which the introductory legislation has already passed (though only after being rammed through with all the power the government could muster). I nevertheless predict with confidence that this will policy will die before it becomes mainstream, and the framework will be quietly "forgotten" by the next election. Over-hyped arguments about fighting terrorism and pleas to trust the government just ain't what they used to be, and I rather suspect that once the current political fad of believing the world is about to end because of environmental catastrophes has passed, I think privacy and personal freedom will be the Next Big Political Hot Potato.

On which note, it's interesting that by far the most-signed petition on the site objects to the introduction of vehicle tracking and road pricing measures. Many in government, including quite a few of my local councillors as well as the big central government players, seem to think this is inevitable. I rather suspect that it will be shot down on a similar basis to ID cards: it's a not-so-stealth tax, and it's a gross invasion of privacy. It's also overcomplicated when a much simpler alternative already exists via petrol tax, which could achieve much of the same end result. And of course, it's the answer to a problem that has only been created through a combination of poor government strategy and naive business management. The correct answers don't even seem to occur to them: not planning such that much of the population doesn't work locally; providing effective public transport alternatives rather than unreliable, overpriced, and generally less pleasant "services"; getting heavy freight off the roads and onto the alternative networks as much as possible; setting higher basic driving standards to reduce the number of incompetent/inconsiderate drivers who cause a disproportionate amount of congestion; providing serious facilities for cyclists rather than half-assed cycle lanes that do more harm than good, and encouraging employers to provide basics like secure cycle storage and showers at the office; management realising that flexible working hours as a minimum and often telecommuting are now both possible and indeed desirable arrangements for many workplaces; and so on, and so on.

Of course, whether any e-petitions like this will make the slightest difference to government policy remains to be seen. But if opposing a flawed and abusive policy to address the wrong underlying problem can get 600,000 names behind it within a couple of months, put me down as number 600,001; it's got to be worth a try, and even if the current government don't care, it could raise the profile of the issue come election time and get a commitment from other parties to oppose it.

Re:Validity?

[PaulBu]

... it will give more voice to people who are tech savvy - not exactly the ideal in a democratic republic (or whatever Britain is).

And why would you say that? I guess we would both agree that in our time it is, in some sense, better when people going to polls are literate (as in, able to actually read something about an issue) -- not that I would advocate taking the right to vote from illiterate people, that would be wrong.

The same slight bias towards "tech--" (and probably something else) -- savvy individuals might be healthy as well.

Paul B.

P.S. Yes, I do like the idea too!

Re:Validity?

[kcbrown]

Good point, feedback is always a good thing;

Feedback is a good thing when it makes a difference. That is, when it's heeded.

Feedback is a bad thing when it's ignored, because it becomes a waste of time and resources and gives the population a false sense of accomplishment -- it makes them believe that their voice is important when it obviously isn't.

In this case, I think it's overwhelmingly likely that the latter option is what's actually happening.

Governments no longer listen to the people. They listen almost exclusively to corporations.

Re:Validity?

[TubeSteak]

If the petitions are narrow & specific, then I agree this might be a useful tool.

But more often, you got petitions like "cure world hunger" or some other broad/vague wording which has zero chance of being feasible... but what politician is going to come out against curing world hunger?

FTFA, it seems like the Brits have relatively specific petitions, which is a good thing. OTOH, how many successful petitions will ever advocate higher taxes or anything that will require sacrifice?

Re:Validity?

[sumdumass]

One of the reasons for a government is that what best ofr you isn't neccesarily best for everyone. On the same note, what is best for everyone might not be whats best for the country. And even more easily seen is that just because something is popular doesn't mean it is the best for anything.

I'm not saying that anything you describe is good or bad. It is just that governments do things against the populous for reasons we don't like. A good case might be distribution of wealth. Some people might thinkit is a good idea to take all the money from the rich and spread it around to everyone equaly. And when you realize that means you would recieve several thousand dollars it might even be popular too. But we know that if anything like that happened, it would likley ruin the econemy, cause massive inflation and stop the incentives for anyone to make more then they currently are (if it gets taken and given away to someone who made less).

The points you brought out don't seem like anything I would like to happen here but i think we are on the same track. I guess the system might be a good way to let the government make a solid case for doing something that isn't popular and they will probably throw the dog abone every once in a while too. I think it is definatly a bad ordeal if your government takes an opinion poll before take a stance on something. Which might be the end run effect of this petition system were they see how many people are going to be pissed before doing something. This is something that got america in the shape it is in.

Re:Validity?

[sumdumass]

The problem with literate people voting is freedom of speech. And that problem is that there is some many false things writen about some isues, that even the informed person can be just as uninformed as the illiterate one.

And when you start throwing political literature in the mix, you end up with someone who is informed voting for someone who doesn't actualy exist. In the end, not knowing a thing and knowing the wrong things will be about the same.

Re:Validity?

[DavidShor]

Controlling road usage with a petrol tax is like conducting surgery with a sludge hammer.

In order to manage traffic, prices would need to be algorithmically changed several times a day depending on how much road capacity exists in an area. Otherwise you will have large areas of road with excess capacity being held up by crowded bottlenecks.

Re:Validity?

[gallondr00nk]

"On which note, it's interesting that by far the most-signed petition on the site objects to the introduction of vehicle tracking and road pricing measures. Many in government, including quite a few of my local councillors as well as the big central government players, seem to think this is inevitable. I rather suspect that it will be shot down on a similar basis to ID cards: it's a not-so-stealth tax, and it's a gross invasion of privacy"

I'm afraid I can't share your optimism. Looking at the longer term, I would imagine road pricing is being introduced to phase in a new stream of government income. Remember that in 40 or 50 years time we'll (most likely) be using an alternative fuel source, rendering the "minimising environmental impact" punitive petrol tax argument irrelevant. Without high (and flexible in times of election) taxation on private transport, the government won't have the carrot-and-stick approach to woo motorists into voting for them. Knowing the UK though, we'll end up paying high taxes in all areas.

Re:Validity?

[Walt Dismal]

In related news, 50,000 petitioners for more honest government, whose names begin with letters from A through F, were mysteriously killed by men in unmarked vans. Petitioners with names from G through L are advised to go into hiding right quick, and ones with names from M through Z are advised to move to New Zealand while there's still time. Citizens of the US are advised to kiss their asses goodbye and forget about reform. It's too late.

Re:Validity?

[mpe]

I guess the important question is whether this is the correct way of doing it. Politicians are very busy, and don't like their time being wasted.

Problem is that politicians (especially those who have been in office too long) may have a rather warped view of what "time wasting" means compared with the general public. e.g. not regarding being wined and dined by lobbiests as being a time wasting activity...

Re:Validity?

[AndyboyH]

The best thing about petrol tax compared to road pricing as well is that it actually is relevant to the car you drive and how economical that car is. A gas guzzler will consume more petrol per mile and thus be taxed higher than an economical runabout or hybrid. There's simply no need for jeeps and land rovers in city areas.

Admittedly petrol tax won't change congestion, but that's a different kettle of fish. Living near one of the most poorly designed roads (the two lane A1 motorway nr Newcastle) that NEEDS widening for both safety and flow of traffic, it's frustrating yes, but I still think congestion is a lesser evil than road pricing.

Re:Validity?

[Threni]

Given that the whole idea of a modern democracy is to do whatever you want regardless of public opinion, this is just another piece of table dressing. Most of the UK was against backing the US war against Iraq - there were huge demonstrations here. Our wishes were ignored. You seriously think a fucking website is going to make any difference? Get a grip.

Re:Validity?

[GerryHattrick]

Agreed to this, but for satellite road pricing, check whether it hasn't already been secretly committed-to in Brussels. That would likely have been part of the 'carbon nonsense' package. OT, my contribution to the fight against the 'global warming' chimera is eagerly to burn all my rubbish (that's 'carbon neutral', at least in the longer term), and to make the bonfires as smoky as possible - well, soot on the neighbour's washing is carbon trapped within Gaia, not naughty carbon dioxide that trees live on.

Re:Validity?

[FreakyLefty]

FTFA, it seems like the Brits have relatively specific petitions, which is a good thing. OTOH, how many successful petitions will ever advocate higher taxes or anything that will require sacrifice?

Last time I had a poke through the petitions there were half a dozen drug-related ones. Five of them we in favour of relaxing drug laws, ranging from "controlled trials in tolerance areas" all the way to "decriminalise all drugs". On the other side, a single petition with a single signature, saying "pretty please, keep the drugs laws the way they are." It's a pretty unique stance :-)

My personal favourite is still this one though. Childish, me?

Re:Validity?

[AGMW]

If road pricing was in place and I knew that driving on a motorway between 7-9am would cost me more than driving outside of that time I would see if I could change my travel plans. In effect reducing road congestion, which is the whole point of the bill.

That's actually a good point and potentially worthwhile, but could this be achieved by other means because I REALLY don't want a tracking device in my car!

A short story: A friend was recently called by a bunch of blackmailers who threatened his family unless he paid them some money. He obviously called the police who whisked him and his family away to a safe house and stationed an armed response unit near his house for when he came back to recieve the next call (somewhat surprising his father-in-law!). They caught them, as it happens, but there is NO WAY IN HELL that he will allow his wife and kids to drive around in a vehicle that ANYONE could track, and therefore aid in the finding and kidnapping of his family. It just won't happen! And don't tell me that "only the authorities" will have access to the system because I've worked in IT for over 20 years and I just don't believe you!

Let alone the concept of the Gov being able to track you. I seriously don't swallow the "congestion" argument either as it must be incredibly expensive to throw this technology at the problem when a row of toll booths could do much the same, and increasing tax on petrol (move the Road Fund Licence - UK Only - onto petrol too!) will mean you pay more for a more thirsty car, or if you drive it more aggressively, or if you drive in rush hour. Not perhaps quite the granularity of satallite tracking, but way-way-way cheaper to setup!

Re:Validity?

[julesh]

If the petitions are narrow & specific, then I agree this might be a useful tool.

A lot of them are. Some which may be of interest to slashdotters include:

to make software patents clearly unenforcible
to Abandon plans to make it a criminal offence to possess "violent pornography"
to Abolish all faith schools and prohibit the teaching of creationism and other religious mythology in all UK schools
to levy a tax on energy inefficient light bulbs so that their long term financial and environmental cost is visible in their retail price
to force Ofcom [UK equivalent of FCC] to allocate the unused radio spectrum after the analogue switchover to HDTV services
to ensure that any website launched by the government complies with accessibility standards (WCAG AA at least)
to Improve Open Source use in govenment and local govenment work places
to Reject any motions to extend the copyright term for sound recordings
to award Professor Stephen W. Hawking a Knighthood
to Arrange for British Standard Time to be maintained in England permanently

and of course the petition for the prime mininster to stand on his head and juggle ice-cream. All feasible, most narrowly defined, or at least easy to investigate ways of achieving.

Re:Validity?

[lixee]

I rather suspect that once the current political fad of believing the world is about to end because of environmental catastrophes has passed, I think privacy and personal freedom will be the Next Big Political Hot Potato.

Sure, our current lifestyles are demonstrably sustainable. It's not like many species are exctinct or on the verge of being so because of us...

But then again

Re:Validity?

[TractorBarry]

Provide feedback to the government ? To misquote an old joke...

"I've heard that the prime Minister gets two boxes full of shit sent to him every week...

What I want to know is who's sending the other one ?"

Re:Validity?

[asc99c]

So many good points there. Although somehow the reports say public transport is getting better I only ever see it getting worse with most services being cut back to run less regularly and many cut entirely - the village I grew up in now has only one bus an hour, down from around 6 when I was a kid. I do cycle to work, but most of the bike lanes are pointless - two sections are only 10 metres long, another is right outside peoples houses so it's just full of parked cars. House prices are now so high that even with a well paying job, I'm looking at moving half an hour drive from work to be able to afford more than a terrace. I'm already signed up to the petition and hope plenty more people do.

Re:Validity?

[pfafrich]

This seems to be whats proposed for manchester. The congenstion charge changes depending on the amount of traffic.

Re:Validity?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Sure, our current lifestyles are demonstrably sustainable. It's not like many species are exctinct or on the verge of being so because of us...

There are thousands of people dying in Africa every day because of famine and disease, too, yet there is enough food in the world to feed everyone and most of the health problems they have are trivially cured by western medicine.

Just because something bad is happening, that doesn't mean we can't fix it. It just means that we (or our elected representatives, on this scale) aren't fixing it, and that's a very different kind of problem.

Re:Validity?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

We hear a lot of nonsense about transferring freight to railways, but the commercial logic has been the reverse for over 50 years now. Trains and railways are EXTREMELY expensive and inflexible, the only people who believe otherwise are the same clowns who think that rail should be publically subsidised and that public money grows on fucking trees.

Looked at purely in economic terms, railways are a commercial nonsense and always have been. As far as I'm aware, there is no heavy rail system anywhere in the world that competes successfully with other modes of transport on price alone, nor even that makes a profit without government subsidy to drive it.

The thing about railways is that they have other advantages, in terms of capacity, predictability, speed and the like. It may be in the national interest to subsidise railways in general and rail freight in particular, to reduce the congestion, wear-and-tear, and often-serious accidents that come from having our roads carrying increasing numbers of increasingly heavy goods vehicles.

In fact, it may even make economic sense to do so, when you consider the economic impact of the downsides of road freight. Just because our current government seems to be taking more tax money by the day but not improving front-line services, that doesn't mean improving things always costs more.

Re:Validity?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

One of the reasons for a government is that what best ofr you isn't neccesarily best for everyone. On the same note, what is best for everyone might not be whats best for the country. And even more easily seen is that just because something is popular doesn't mean it is the best for anything.

Much of that is true, though I question what you think is best for a country if it's not what's best for everyone in that country.

However, in a democracy (or a republic, or...) the government has a duty to act as the people collectively wish. The only exception that can be justified is when the government knows something that the population as a whole doesn't, and that something would influence people's decisions if they understood it.

This can happen because government has access to privileged information. This should be very rare, only really applying to genuine national security matters that necessitate a level of secrecy.

More usually, it happens because government has the resources to collect and analyse a large amount of information, to a level of detail that most people just don't have time to look at. In this case, the appropriate response from the government is not to legislate against the will of the people. Rather, the government should educate the people so they can appreciate why something else is a better way. If the government are right, the people will naturally tend to support going down that path once they understand the issue, and there is no longer any need to legislate against their wishes. If the government cannot convince the population that they are wrong and it is right, maybe it doesn't deserve to be the government any more?

Re:Validity?

[Seraphim1982]

There are thousands of people dying in Africa every day because of famine and disease, too, yet there is enough food in the world to feed everyone and most of the health problems they have are trivially cured by western medicine.

Just because something bad is happening, that doesn't mean we can't fix it. It just means that we (or our elected representatives, on this scale) aren't fixing it, and that's a very different kind of problem.

Feeding them and giving them medicine is not going to "fix" the problem, it's just treating the symptoms. If you want to fix the problem you need to go after the actual causes of the famine and disease.

Re:Validity?

[Shaper_pmp]

If you read, the worst that can happen is that books can lie to you.

If you can't read, both books and the guy explaining what's going on because you can't find out for yourself may lie to you.

Illiteracy = 1 unnecessary extra point of failure.

Hence, a literate population will, on average, be better informed and more correct in their judgements and decisions.

It's like saying "generally, the more you can find out the more likely you are to make the right decision.

This is so basic and self-evident I'm surprised you're even trying to argue it.

Re:Validity?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Some of those are a little out of date. For example, after overwhelming feedback against the idea (you can read the submissions on the web site), the Gowers Review recommended against extending the copyright period on sound recordings, and the government has pretty much uniformly backed the Review's recommendations.

Re:Validity?

[VJ42]

not exactly the ideal in a democratic republic (or whatever Britain is).
For future reference we're considered a constitutional monarchy or a constitutional democratic monarchy along with the other Commonwealth countries who retain the Queen as head of state such as Australia and Canada. I believe that Japan, Spain and the Netherlands among others are also considered constitutional monarchies (basically any country that has a hereditary monarch as head of state, not necessarily a king or Queen Japan, for example has an Emperor, and Luxembourg has a reigning Grand Duke).

Re:Validity?

[mdwh2]

The porn one is also a good example of "the other side being more zealous" - an opposing petiton to criminalise private possession a wide range of porn (including just filming yourself and your partner in private), has gathered almost twice as many signatures in a shorter time.

It's being promoted by mediawatch-uk (general pro-censorship group, set up by Mary Whitehouse), and as far as I can tell appears to be circulating through all the religious channels.

I even asked someone who'd signed why they'd want to criminalise two people filming themselves, and the response was "Why would anyone want to do that?"

Re:Validity?

[sumdumass]

This is so basic and self-evident I'm surprised you're even trying to argue it.

No, I wasn't really trying to argue this, It is the oposite actualy. In an ideal world, that literacy would be more benificial but we don't have and ideal world.

It is as more like saying generally, the more you can find out the more likely you are to make the wrong decision based on misrepresentations and someone else's agenda. I essence, it would be a vote in the same manor of the uninformed person.

Some people only beleive the campaign literature distributed by one party oposed to all that availible. Some will only trust the headlines in the newspaper which often present something out of context for shock value. Some will only believe it if they heard it on thier favorite tv/radio show and look only for evidence to support their view. Some will continue to beleive whatever is told to them by anyone who seems the most informative.

I remember getting into an argument with a someone when I saw their kid being taught by a public school and they were making the claim that there was only 26 ammendmentd to the constitution. I was told that "the teacher went to school for 4 or more years to learn this stuff, they know more then you do". Turns out I was right and the outdated schoolbooks were wrong. But they beleived the wrong position because of the implied autority the teacher has. This can easily be traded into any other subject we might be facing at the polls.

Another Case in point, I know a guy who swore up and down that Clinton was going to turn control of America over to the UN when his time was up and they were going to make him the overseer of america in return. I know another who thinks Bush is going to declare martial law and not have another election. Of course he would make this claim going into each election since the war on terror strarted. These people are not alone either. And they firmly belive that what they do at the polls are the right thing to do. Voter literacy doesn't mean much of anything different then what we have now.

Re:Validity?

[dave420]

Just because it could be misused is no reason to not adopt otherwise useful technology. We should instead work on making it impossible to be misused. It would be like banning a drug because the doctors administering it are too poorly trained to administer it safely all the time - in that rather rambing example, shouldn't we train the doctors, instead of limiting what help they can give? It's the same with technology, or in fact any social aparatus that can affect others. The police force for another example - the cops have demonstrated over the years that they are prone to being corrupted. Does that mean we should erradicate the police force, or work to make it better?

Re:Validity?

[AGMW]

It would be like banning a drug because the doctors administering it are too poorly trained to administer it safely all the time

Good analogy. If medical trials were undertaken for a new drug and it was found that the Drs couldn't administer it correctly, do you think the powers that be would :-
a) Issue a licence for the drug anyway, because the Drs will get the hang of it eventually
b) Send it back to the drug companies until they can provide a simpler administration system

My guess is they'd send it back to the drug company.

Sure, work to make the technology foolproof, but in the meantime don't foist a half-baked technical solution on the public just because it sounds like a good idea. The fact of the matter is that this kind of technology just isn't foolproof yet and there will be security leaks, and for that reason the tech is simply not ready to be rolled out yet!

Re:Validity?

[jafac]

Destiny Welles (gak!) of the Register made an interesting point in her most recent in a series of Second Life articles. She said it was the whitest, most middle-class environment she's ever been in. She changed her avatar to a black woman, and she said she got hit on easily 10 times less.

She attributes this fact to the topic we used to all talk about back in the 1990's - the "Digital Divide". People who play SL, are typically wealthy, upper-middle-class people, who can afford broadband connections, and a fairly high-powered computer system, and who have enough time to spare from making a living in their First Life, to devote to a Second Life.

I think it was an astute observation.

While the internet tends to mask things like race, sex, (and magnify things like political stance or religion), this masking also has the effect of making us all believe we're interacting with a well-rounded audience, when in fact, as white-middle-class folks, we're probably even more isolated on the internet than we are in our gated suburban communities.

So, on that basis: yes, I'm glad that internet petitions give "my people" more of a voice, because between the monied interests of the far right, and the popular interests of the far left, the middle class has been getting drowned out and decimated in this country for over 30 years, and at an ever quickening pace. But on the other hand, I see this process as too easily subverted by monied interests (ie. grassroots campaigns - remember the outrage of the 100 million complaint emails to the FCC from people who saw Janet Jackson's tit, when only 50 million people even watched the game on TV?), and the process will unfairly exclude the poor.

Re:Validity?

[forkazoo]

Looked at purely in economic terms, railways are a commercial nonsense and always have been. As far as I'm aware, there is no heavy rail system anywhere in the world that competes successfully with other modes of transport on price alone, nor even that makes a profit without government subsidy to drive it.

Well, it's a fair point that rail is expensive. It's also a fair point that completely private rail tends to have trouble competing against other methods of transport, thus the most successful rail systems are government subsidised and don't make a profit on their own. All these points are perfectly fair and reasonable.

So, where are the other completely unsubsidised methods of transportation that private rail can compete with? Government maintains the roads. Government has a hand in the airports. Government has a hand in the bus lines. Given the amount of money spent on road construction, road repair, police to catch speeders, judges to yell at speeders, driver's education in schools, tax breaks to companies that make gasoline, etc., on and on, is it really fair to think that rail should only be considered valid competition to the roads if the givernment doesn't help it out at all?

Imagine how expensive your commute would be if you had to either pave your own way, or go by a completely private toll road. Suddenly, even the over priced private trains seem to be like a really inexpensive alternative. In general, I don't support government assistance for business. I disagree with tax breaks for oil companies as an example. OTOH, I think it may be perfectly reasonable to fund rail. Hell, let the government build the rail and let all residents ride for free. See how much traffic that clears up, and how much less you have to spend on roads. You might damn near break even to give away train passes.

Re:Validity?

[mollymoo]

On the same note, what is best for everyone might not be whats best for the country.

Can you explain that, perhaps with an example? I fail to see how something which is best for everyone can fail to be best for the country.

Re:Validity?

[UpnAtom]

I confidently predict that these petitions will make absolutely no difference. Blair has never, not once, listened to the public. He has pretended to, numerous times.

A million Britons are still learning the difference.

Re:Validity?

[drsquare]

If road pricing was in place and I knew that driving on a motorway between 7-9am would cost me more than driving outside of that time I would see if I could change my travel plans.

How do you change your travel plans? If you work a shift that starts at 8am, you can't decide to get there for 6am or 10am. If they charge between 7-9am, and everyone decides to come in for 10am, then the congestion is just moved later!

If you think this is about anything other than another tax, then you're naive. I drive to work on a route with no traffic, but you can bet I'll be charged!

Eventually we'll have a situation where many people can't afford to go to work at all, but then this government is all about punishing people for working and rewarded layabout scroungers.

Re:Validity?

[malsdavis]

"Looked at purely in economic terms, railways are a commercial nonsense and always have been. As far as I'm aware, there is no heavy rail system anywhere in the world that competes successfully with other modes of transport on price alone, nor even that makes a profit without government subsidy to drive it."

Although somewhat true, other forms of transport (i.e. roads and planes) do actually receive massive subsidies via methods such as road/airport building projects. Where as the cost of building and maintaining rail infastructure is pretty much always completely incorporated into the per mile cost of transport, this is rarely the case for road transport. Also roads use up an absoultly enormous amount of land area, in cities in particular, road transport infrastructure (roads, driveways & carparks) often take up about 60% of the available land., This is an absolutely massive economic (not to mention ecological) cost which is almost never taken into account.

Also, the cost of road usage (particularly car usage) is on average about double that of just the price of the fuel due to vehicle depreciation and maintenance (although slightly less for trucks and lorries) however this is rarely taken into account, by individuals at least.

Finally as you point out, there are several indirect - and very hard to calculate - economic advantages from rail transport which governments rarely take into account; probably because they know won't be credited for them when they subtly help the economy and citizens' quality of life 10+ years later.

Re:Validity?

[Baba Ram Dass]

That's actually a good point and potentially worthwhile, but could this be achieved by other means because I REALLY don't want a tracking device in my car! I'm completely with you on that; I don't want a tracking device on my vehicle either, whether it's the government doing the tracking or AAA. But the great thing about the free market is what's great about open source; you've got thousands of minds working, and even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again.

What you or I or a hundred other Slashdotters here can think of as a solution (e.g. tracking device for billing) is only a drop in the bucket compared to what the free market could come up with if left to its own devices. After all, we're just here shooting the shit, but someone wanting to make a living off of providing mediums of transportation that customers would want en masse--that is, something that didn't involve tracking our every move--is going to come up with even greater ideas: they're driven by profit, while we're just driven by throwing "what if"s around.

Re:Validity?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Although somewhat true, other forms of transport (i.e. roads and planes) do actually receive massive subsidies via methods such as road/airport building projects.

Except that roads don't. In fact, if you look at the amount of money raised by the government through direct methods of taxation on motorists (petrol tax, VED, etc.) and compare it to the amount of money spent on maintaining the roads and providing related services like road policing, you'll be lucky to find a year in which motorists get back as much as 1/3 of what they're charged. The motorists subsidise the government, and heavily, not the other way around.

This is one obvious reason the whole "everyone should use public transport" argument is disingenuous. If everyone used public transport, UK Plc would go bust within months. The same hypocrisy is evident in speeding fines, congestion charging, car parking charges and so on as well, of course: those administering such schemes have a vested interest in charging as much as possible from as many people as possible without actually making it so expensive that they really do change people's behaviour.

Re:Validity?

[malsdavis]

This is one obvious reason the whole "everyone should use public transport" argument is disingenuous. If everyone used public transport, UK Plc would go bust within months.

That's not how economics works. If no-one brought fuel then UK plc would go through the roof and foreign debt (one of the British economy's current biggest problems) would decrease massively. If everyone used public transport and didn't buy petrol, they would either have more money to spend on other taxed items (public transport for start which is taxed at the company profits level) or if they put the money in the bank, the extra tax from interest payments would more or less make up for the difference. Taxes would almost certainly be altered but the only effect tax and charges can have is to either encourage or discourage specific expenditures, they don't effect the overall "money in the pot", just where it goes.

At the end of the day the only change would be that far less money flows out of the U.K. and into countries like Saudi Arabia and Norway. The fundamental point being that a reduction in consumption never hurts the economics of a country or economic entity (in fact as stated above it helps it to the amount of the net price of those consumables), the only ones who are hurt are the specific companies who produce those consumables.

Re:Validity?

[sumdumass]

It comes around when "the best" is a subjective word that has differnt meanings depending on who you ask. It usualy has to do with some people pressing more importance to somethings then others when comming to "the best" of anything for anyone example. It also has to do with ignorance and differing perceptions.

An example might be were people are seeing jobs go over seas yet refuse to buy american good in mass. They are content with buying the cheaper import and saving a buck while wondering if they will have ajob next month. There are all kinds of what if's associated so I will just bring it to a generic example to avoid the "but if we did this or that" scenarios that are sure to pop up.

So lets asume that jobs are going over seas and americans are going unemployed. The best interest for the population would be to keep the jobs in america, bring some back and maybe more while we are at it. So someone comes up with a plan that involves tarrifs on all imports that make the products cost more then those produced in america. The plan also bars anyone who shipped jobs over seas from importing any products at all untill those jobs have returned. Now this will definatly be in the best interest of the public because it keeps them employed and stops the jobs for leavig to cheaper labor markets. But the reality means that other countries would do the same for imports so we will export less, possibly costing jobs. The amount we make will now buy less goods so we will end up in an inflation spiral or sorts (meaning the existing jobs don't pay as much). Our allies might not consider us allies any more because of what we do to the products they wish to sell to us and it can go on and on and on.

There are things that can be done that limit the negetive effects but then you have to decide what is negetive and what to do. In this example we didn't decide it. And knowing the possible outcome of the actions is only asumed because we know it. There could very well be people who never thought anything like that could have happened yet claim it is in thier best interest to go ahead with the plan in spite of it.

It all revolves around what's in my best interest isn't neccesariyl in your best interest. But only gets confusing when everyone agrees what the best interest is and doesn't look at the outcome. In our little example, they only knew it would bring jobs back and let them resume their lives again. Thats in thier best interest but not the country's when they know or suspect the outcome will/could have an adverse effect. The general public isn't always privi to the whole story or inner workings of things and may demand something that is in thier best interest. It ins't until the other side is presented do we know that it wasn't in thier best interest.

The example is quite simple but is supposed to ilistrate how the public might think something is in thier best interest were the government isn't. Lynch mobs usualy have the majority of support and beleive it is in thier best interest but the government doesn't always think it is in their best interest. See were this is going?

Re:Validity?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Sorry, I've no economics PhD, and I just don't follow your argument. Petrol is currently taxed at somewhere around 80p in the pound, if memory serves. In fact, it's taxed and then you pay tax on the tax, because of the VAT issue.

The alternative uses people might have for their money may involve paying some tax in other ways, but not nearly as much. Nothing -- not buying other consumables, not interest on bank accounts, not capital gains from investments, not corporate profits -- is taxed at a rate anything like what is raised directly from tax on petrol. Taxation is not a zero-sum game; if it were, the total government funding wouldn't vary by tax policy, would it?

Re:Validity?

[mollymoo]

In your example, the idea of tariffs etc. being in the best interests of the public is just plain wrong and you appear to know that - so how you can claim the opposite I don't know. If you meant "what the majority think is best right now" vs "what's really best in the long term" you should have said that, but you didn't. I accept that it's the position of the government (which is distinct from the country) to take a more long-term view. You seemed to be claiming that you could harm everybody in a country while still benefiting that country, which of course you can't, because a country is little more than a group of people living together under a common government.

Re:Validity?

[sumdumass]

Much of that is true, though I question what you think is best for a country if it's not what's best for everyone in that country.

You just laid out a couple of situations that lead into the problem. It shouldn't happen often but could happen. Looking at it directly, It would boil down to who thinks it is the best interest and wether or not you agree. And here lies the problem, the mob mentaility can kick in and everyone claims something is in their best interest when sitting back and reasoning would show it isn't. before long, the momentum can build to the point 80 percent think so on the surface of the issue.

I do however take exception with the last few points you made. While the government who disagrees should make the reasons known and make somewhat of an attempt to educate the people, the common use of this tactic might lead into the government not being able to acomlish something. But the frightening thing is that it might lead to a department who's entire focus is re-educating people and spreading the propaganda. We don't need another government sponsors propaganda and re-education department.

The second thing I have issue with is the premise that If they cannot explain thier position, they don't need to be in government. The fact is that the smartest people sometimes have problems comunicating to a level others can redily understand. This is one reason people with the same reletive IQs tend to gravitate to each other. So with someone who cannot comunicate the message properly, we might miss out on some of the most inteligent people serving the people. Also, the amount of momentum that follows some movements can overwhelm any attempt to explore the ramifications. Lynch mobs have this problem. The reaction to 9/11 and the jump to war had this problem. The examples can probabley go on and on.

We elect leaders to represent us in government because we know majority's rule causes problems. We expect them to make the right decision even when majority's opinions differ. In the end it is how and who percieves the situation and solution as in "the best interest"

Re:Validity?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Looking at it directly, It would boil down to who thinks it is the best interest and wether or not you agree.

That's true. But how can you ever define "best interest" in absolute terms? What objective measure can you use to determine who is correct?

The unfortunate reality is that you can't. And therefore I fall back on the best answer I know: people, by and large, are sensible but uninformed. The safest way to make decisions is to educate the people to the level where they can make an informed and reasoned decision, and then trust them to do the best they can. Typically, this will happen via a few of the smarter people appreciating the big picture, and then drawing it to the attention of everyone else. Hopefully, we elected those smart people to govern us, but nothing stops them from speaking up even if we didn't.

While the government who disagrees should make the reasons known and make somewhat of an attempt to educate the people, the common use of this tactic might lead into the government not being able to acomlish something. But the frightening thing is that it might lead to a department who's entire focus is re-educating people and spreading the propaganda. We don't need another government sponsors propaganda and re-education department.

Of course that's not an ideal outcome, I agree. But I would rather have a government that was compelled to be open, and to spend some public money keeping the people informed, but to respect public opinion afterwards, than have a government that can be closed and do whatever it wants, with the people being kept in the dark.

The second thing I have issue with is the premise that If they cannot explain thier position, they don't need to be in government. The fact is that the smartest people sometimes have problems comunicating to a level others can redily understand.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. It has been my experience, throughout my adult life and in any field I can think of, that the really smart people almost invariably can explain something in simple terms. The people who make complicated things sound complicated are usually the ones who think they are smart, but aren't.

We elect leaders to represent us in government because we know majority's rule causes problems. We expect them to make the right decision even when majority's opinions differ.

On the contrary, I think we elect people to run the government because we have better things to do than have the entire population spend their time pondering exactly the same issues. But if they can't convince the population that they have the right policy on a contentious call that does attract public consideration, how do we know their policy is right at all?

Personally, I think the entire concept of electing a political party based on detailed manifesto promises is just daft anyway. We ought to vote for our representatives based on their basic principles and general philosophy -- things that can at least be applied meaningfully to changing circumstances that will inevitably arise before the next election. Where those principles give a clear direction, they can then take it, with some degree of confidence that the people would agree with them. Where an important issue is not clearly guided by the principles, the people can be consulted.

Re:Validity?

[potat0man]

How about a toll-booth option for people who would rather pay cash?

OK, next problem!

Re:Validity?

[sumdumass]

This is the exact problem. The perception of who knew what and when they know it. So, imagine You didn't know what you do know about placing taxes and restriction on imports. And further more, imagine you actualy though it was a good idea. The government knows different, tries to explain it to you but you still don't get it and believe the plan is the solution to the problem. Now the majority of the population thinks the same way as your imagining here.

Now, if I attempt to explain it would screw things up worse then it already is and majority of people doesn't believe me and insists that is the best thing to do. The question is, is it in the best interest for the country to do what the majority of the citizens want or do nothing (or even the oposite). Remember, you don't know the bad effect of doing it. Maybe my position is explained away by someone as saying anything to help the BigOil or Massive corperations and that is the reason I'm objecting.

Ok, you can stop imagining you don't know the outcome would be bad. But do you see how people can believe one thing and someone else another. These things can be in total conflict with each other but one side doesn't see how the other's position is more then support for big oil or large corperations. But the main factor is more to the point who thinks it is in their best interest (the pro tarrif crowd)whether they still believe that. Once you look back into history and explain that you did this for this reason, you know it wasn't the best interest of the people to proceed with what they wanted. But the precieved best interest and actions already have happened. So you have to alway look at it in the present tense form too.

Re:Validity?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I was just rereading these posts and realised I was misleading earlier on: it is the UK government that I believe would suffer "financial hardship" if people actually got out of their cars (via a major loss of tax revenue), not UK business as a whole (who as you say ought to see an increase in custom because people have more money to spend due to paying less tax). Sorry I wasn't clear before.

Re:Validity?

[Shaper_pmp]

"It is as more like saying generally, the more you can find out the more likely you are to make the wrong decision based on misrepresentations and someone else's agenda. I essence, it would be a vote in the same manor of the uninformed person."

I think I see. My position is that people are inherently reasonable - even if they believe the wrong things, if they see enough counter-evidence and little enough evidence in favour of their position (this includes other people telling them their opinions), eventually their opinion will weaken or change to the correct one.

Hence, literacy is a good thing because it increases the amount of evidence you can get.

There are two assumptions there:
1. People are "reasonable". I think this is safe, because even if they aren't rational enough to consider the evidence on an emotional level, eventually enough people telling them the correct interpretation will have an emotive, brainwashing effect anyway.

2. The majority of information available on a given topic is generally pushing the correct interpretation. Hence, more literature => more correctness. If this assumption doesn't hold true (eg, with the internet giving every fuckwit under the sun their own little soapbox to shout from, and anyone with a non-mainstream agenda tending to scream louder than the restrained, correct majority), then more literature => more horseshit.

Luckily, minority-agenda-driven fuckwits tend to shout at each other as much as at each other, so the majority interpretation (though quiet) tends to drown it out. The only real problem is well-organised groups of fuckwits, who work together to make their interpretations seem like the most prominent ones (Neocons, Fundamentalists, etc).

"Some people only beleive the campaign literature distributed by one party oposed to all that availible. Some will only trust the headlines in the newspaper which often present something out of context for shock value. Some will only believe it if they heard it on thier favorite tv/radio show and look only for evidence to support their view. Some will continue to beleive whatever is told to them by anyone who seems the most informative."

Indeed. But the key thing here is that if a large enough majority of people keep telling them they're wrong, eventually they will begin to doubt their position. It might not be easy, but to do otherwise is a pretty good indication of insanity.

"I remember getting into an argument with a someone when I saw their kid being taught by a public school and they were making the claim that there was only 26 ammendmentd to the constitution... But they beleived the wrong position because of the implied autority the teacher has."

Actually, this is trivially solvable, by going on the net or going down to your library and getting a copy of the constitution. This doesn't demonstrate that greater access to information is bad because one guy read the wrong thing, it demonstrates how you still needed even greater access. Namely, the ability to compare your knowledge with "everyone's" knowledge without having to go to the library (eg, by using a laptop and Google).

"Another Case in point, I know a guy who swore up and down that Clinton was going to turn control of America over to the UN when his time was up and they were going to make him the overseer of america in return. I know another who thinks Bush is going to declare martial law and not have another election. Of course he would make this claim going into each election since the war on terror strarted. These people are not alone either. And they firmly belive that what they do at the polls are the right thing to do. Voter literacy doesn't mean much of anything different then what we have now."

Right. But in any sensible debate these people are quickly laughed out of the conversation. Just because you can still point to isolated cranks and loonies doesn't mean that the vast majority aren't ge

Re:Validity?

[sumdumass]

I think I see. My position is that people are inherently reasonable - even if they believe the wrong things, if they see enough counter-evidence and little enough evidence in favour of their position (this includes other people telling them their opinions), eventually their opinion will weaken or change to the correct one.

In an ideal and rational world,(country, state, city, organization, whatever,) then yes. But as life often points out, if isn't always ideal or rational. The problem I see is the damage that could/would/might be done in the process of getting to that point. Making the results just the same as the uninformed or illiterate voters. Literacy, wouldn't neccesarily make a positive outcome and I don't see the benifit over the rest. Because over time you can educate the uneducated or illiterate people too.

1. People are "reasonable". I think this is safe, because even if they aren't rational enough to consider the evidence on an emotional level, eventually enough people telling them the correct interpretation will have an emotive, brainwashing effect anyway.

Sure, but there is little difference between doing this for a literate and a dumb voter. Another thing, This smells a lot like the old adage of saying something so many times, people just believe it is true. Unfortunatly this can go bother ways.

2. The majority of information available on a given topic is generally pushing the correct interpretation. Hence, more literature => more correctness. If this assumption doesn't hold true (eg, with the internet giving every fuckwit under the sun their own little soapbox to shout from, and anyone with a non-mainstream agenda tending to scream louder than the restrained, correct majority), then more literature => more horseshit.

This is true to an extent. Take something that has been backed by some agenda pushing shill for instance. It doesn't matter what the subject is, Or how acurate the portrayal of the information is, it can be discounted by were it comes from. I mean if you are saying tax cuts spur the econemy and then point to rush's web site, your going to be ignored. On the same note, almost all anti global warming research is cirrently being discounted on the basis that Exxon paid someone to blurr the results of current research. This means that anything discovered that doesn't toe the line is almost instantly dismissed by the masses. What happens if we find we have been looking at it wrong and it is actualy worse then we think and the solution has nothing to do with altering human activity. Pfft. gone. What about evolution and the big bang, What if it is determined that we never came from single celled organisms, that only a few creatures did and we were implanted here from some other planet for a variety of reasons. pfft, gone. Even if they found the space ship and the log book detailing what happened, pffft gone. And especialy if we find a rules and regulation book that amounts to the basis of most religions, pfft gone.

I'm not saying any of that it the case but I am saying thatif it did become the case, we would never know it because of the free speech others have in making sure we only belive in what they tell us.

But the key thing here is that if a large enough majority of people keep telling them they're wrong, eventually they will begin to doubt their position. It might not be easy, but to do otherwise is a pretty good indication of insanity.

And how many years did this process of getting it right take before they found that the sun was the center of the universe or that hitler wasn't a nice guy. And the strange thing is that once we knew this, it didn't take everyone reading something to know-they were told about it. literacy didn't make too much of a difference to the voting population there.

A prime case in point. People still think we gave Israel to the jews because of WW2. They also believ

The short answer:

[Fyre2012]

Yes

Is this a valid way to provide feedback to the government or merely an exercise in keeping the populace happy?

Since when is having a happy populace providing feedback to encourage positive change in our governments a bad thing?

Re:The short answer:

[PinkyDead]

No.

By looking at the top two petitions you can clearly see why. The first one has huge popular support, but I really couldn't care less whether it goes through. But if it's important enough for these guys - sure, let them have it.

On the other hand, Fox hunting is a very polar issue. And while it is represented here as having support, there is no indication as to how many people are against it.

It's a fine way to tell the government that you are unhappy, and the government should take it serious enough to at least look into the issues. But it shouldn't be seen as a genuine reflection of the public POV or as a valid measure of the government's approval rating and it certainly shouldn't be used as a basis for policy making.

Re:The short answer:

[AGMW]

On the other hand, Fox hunting is a very polar issue. And while it is represented here as having support, there is no indication as to how many people are against it.

That's true, but it was banned the exact same way. Think about it for a second. Who is most likely to express an opinion, the people who dislike fox hunting (actually, mostly they disliked the fox hunters!), or the people who don't care one way or the other!

It's ALWAYS the minority group who makes the most noise who gets listened too. I, personally, don't like fox hunting, but I don't think it should have been banned. All banning it did was whip up support for a dwindling pasttime! If they'd left it alone it would have died out eventually anyway, and now, because of the ham-fisted, mostly classwar lefties, fox hunting pretty much continues with added support, and to top it all, more foxes are killed by shooting, and that is often not a clean kill!

Re:The short answer:

[greenrd]

That's true, but it was banned the exact same way.

No it wasn't. Multiple opinion polls showed that the majority of Brits were in favour of a ban. That is how we find out what people think - professionally-done opinion polls, not petitions.

Re:The short answer:

[AGMW]

Multiple opinion polls showed that the majority of Brits were in favour of a ban.

I will concede that some polls showed a lean towards banning the practice (the link shows a poll with 57% for banning fox hunting). As I mentioned above, I am generally against it, and if asked to chose between not banning it or banning it I would probably have to say ban it (with a shug!), but I guess the point I am making is that a small minority of people made sufficient noise that the question be asked in the first place. Had there not been the vocal minority kicking up a fuss, how many people would have even considered the question? I'd have to say not many! The majority, I would conclude, simply don't care.

I agree with your point about opinon polls vs petitions though! The website should be redesigned so that there is automatically a petition setup to offer the alternative view point, or you can vote for or against!

Sure

[RichPowers]

"Is this a valid way to provide feedback to the government or merely an exercise in keeping the populace happy?"

Sure it is. Besides, if MPs or Congressmen accept emails but don't respond to them, wouldn't that also be a way of "merely keeping the populace happy"? The same could be said of letters or even face-to-face talks. Feedback, be it an e-petition or email, is only worth something if you listen to it...

Re:Sure

[Bogtha]

Sure it is. Besides, if MPs or Congressmen accept emails but don't respond to them, wouldn't that also be a way of "merely keeping the populace happy"?

Interestingly enough, the same people who built this petition system for the government also created WriteToThem — write your message in a text box on the site, and they email/fax/post it to your MP. This has the advantage of them being able to spot when an MP is ignoring people and they've published league tables and other statistics about how responsive MPs are.

Re:Sure

[pfafrich]

The FaxYourMP service by this group is probably a better method to communicate your view than the petitions. I've used it a couple of times and both times got supportive responses from my MP and once got a reply from the secretary of state.

Re:Sure

[clickclickdrone]

>and once got a reply from the secretary of state
Dear citizen,
We know where you live and who your family are so please stop asking damn fool questions, if you get my drift.
Kind Regards
Sec. State.

Re:Sure

[pfafrich]

No actually, a well though through and considered response about a specifics of UK law relating to the changes in agricultural funding systems. I also got a reply on the issue of software pattents, and my MP asked questions about this of the european commitee on the topic.

If you want to be taken seriously in a democracy you first need to give up your anonominity. MP as our elective represantatives have a certain obligation to respond to members of their constituancies.

Re:Sure

[clickclickdrone]

I know... I know... FWIW, I use the 'fax your MP' and have had some very good responses and am now on my MP's email mailing list which is actually genuinely interesting and useful.

2,400 Petitions, 1 Million SIGNATURES

[IanDanforth]

Please edit original submission for accuracy.

-Ian

Re:2,400 Petitions, 1 Million SIGNATURES

[QuickFox]

Please edit original submission for accuracy. You must be new here.

Re:2,400 Petitions, 1 Million SIGNATURES

[ischorr]

I've never understood why editors are so very hesitant to correct errors in titles or summaries. But I suspect you will never see this fixed.

Re:2,400 Petitions, 1 Million SIGNATURES

[IanDanforth]

Maybe I'll get a +1 Funny :)

Re:2,400 Petitions, 1 Million SIGNATURES

[orangeyoda]

Because maybe, modifying the summary would render the entire discussion obsolete, better to leave it how it is and let the comments point out the fallacies.

Re:2,400 Petitions, 1 Million SIGNATURES

[1u3hr]

I've never understood why editors are so very hesitant to correct errors in titles or summaries. But I suspect you will never see this fixed.

Considering they don't even fix spelling mistakes in headlines (US Missle Interceptor Tests a Success, I think that's safe bet. Taco has said he values the spontaneity and informality more than such anal concerns as being correct.

My experience

[Bogtha]

I signed a petition to add an exception to copyright law for personal use a month or two ago. A couple of weeks ago, I got an email from the system notifying me of the government's response:

As you may be aware, in December 2005 the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, announced that there would be a review of the intellectual property framework in the UK, led by Andrew Gowers.

The findings of this review have now been published and recommend the introduction of a private copying exception for the purposes of format shifting. This would allow individuals to copy music which they have legally bought on compact disc onto an MP3 player without infringing copyright.

The Government welcomes this recommendation and is currently considering how such an exception should be created in UK law.

Now obviously the petition didn't have a huge effect, but at least they are aware there is public demand for this, and it's helped me keep track of what they are actually doing about it.

Re:My experience

[steevc]

There's also a petition to make software patents unenforcible that people may wish to sign. It would be good to see it get more signatures than some of the sillier ones.

The road pricing petition is doing suspiciously well with 30x the signatures of the next most popular. That's over 1% of the population. Either someone has been marketing it well or there may be invalid signatures. You have to submit your address, but that's not hard to fake.

Re:My experience

[AGMW]

... someone has been marketing it well ...

I've seen it advertised in various weekly motoring magazines, and on breakfast news (on the BBC), so I guess it's possibly the marketing rather than nefarious means.

public opinion worthless

[swell]

If we had a government that listened in the USA, we would have mandatory church attendence, half the population in jail, and subsidies for any group (unions, lobbyists, Mexicans, etc) that could gather enough signatures.

Thank goodness that politicians DON'T have to cater to everyone!

Re:public opinion worthless

[EveLibertine]

Well, as you point out, this wouldn't work very well for the federal government in the United States. However, I think if you break it down into a more local level you could see better government representation at that level. This could be a good thing for something such as a large city, though I'd definitely be afraid of which petitions get the most submissions in areas such as the bible belt. Then again, how many rednecks know enough about those internets to actually make a difference?

Then there is the question of whether or not it's really necessary at the local level. I don't really have too many complaints about my views being represented at the local level. My views might not be the one that are legislated, but at least they seem to be taken into consideration at the local level.

So, as we have agreed, this probably wouldn't work so well at the federal level, and I'm challenged to think of a methodology that would work. At least they are trying something different to solve their problems. It's seems that we're just stewing in our own excrement right now.

(sorry for repeating myself so often, I just want to be clear and am too exhausted at the moment to refine my thoughts)

Tagging a slashdot question...

[Coopjust]

Whenever Slashdot asks a question in a story I perform a service as a reader:

I tag the story "yes", "no", and "maybe".

Just doing my part ;)

Re:Tagging a slashdot question...

[s4m7]

funny though really, because:

Is this a valid way to provide feedback to the government or merely an exercise in keeping the populace happy?

Hell, why not both?

Re:Tagging a slashdot question...

[rbarreira]

Because they're contradictory. Notice the "merely" word.

Re:Tagging a slashdot question...

[Chris_Keene]

>Whenever Slashdot asks a question in a story I perform a service as a reader:
>
>I tag the story "yes", "no", and "maybe".

And I tag them: .... I_dont_know, Can_you_repeat_the_question?

How about a ballot instead?

[troll -1]

I'm from the UK, lived in the US for many years. This irks me a bit. When I first came to the US I was surprised at how much Americans get a real say in how their government runs.

In many states people vote on everything from whether to build a dam to who's gonna be their sheriff and fire chief. In some places they even vote for judges. In the UK it seems the best they can ever do is a petition, which of course carries no real weight. When I lived in California I was amazed that people actually got to vote on medical marijuana. In the UK such a concept would be considered outrageous. I mean, a county in England, unlike a US state, couldn't even vote to extend pub opening hours. Tough decisions like that are always left to wise men in parliament.

While I think the idea of an e-petition is good, I'd much rather see some real democracy. I don't remember a referendum ever in the UK about anything.

Sorry for the off-topic rant, but it had to be said.

Re:How about a ballot instead?

[Bogtha]

I don't remember a referendum ever in the UK about anything.

Here's a few that spring to mind:

• Scottish devolution referendum
• Welsh devolution referendum
• Northern Irish Belfast Agreement referendum

Okay, so we don't have referenda for trivial stuff like pub opening hours, but we have them for the really important stuff.

Re:How about a ballot instead?

[TheDugong]

I'm from the UK and live in Australia, which is somewhere between the US and the UK in this respect.

The problem with "real democracy" is that there are a lot of ignorant people.

For instance, Toowoomba in Queensland (QLD) which is under severe drought recently had a vote on whether to start using recycled water for drinking water, like most modern cities outside of Australia. The vote ended up being "no". The leader of the no campaign's main argument seemed to be that people will call the town "Poowoomba". The vote was held regardless of the fact that there was no other viable option anyway.

The "wise man in parliament", QLD premier Peter Beattie, has now basically said "tough luck. There is no choice. Water is going to be recycled."

The problem now is that will there be enough water in time.

I am in no way anti-democracy and will defend ignorant people having their say. However, sometimes my jaw literally drops at the ignorance of a lot of voters (and the administrators for that matter). Surely there has to be some kind of happy medium?

Re:How about a ballot instead?

[bogjobber]

That's one of the really great things about federalism. Your voice can be heard and have an impact on local issues, most of the time without the national government stepping in and screwing things up.

Re:How about a ballot instead?

[RealGrouchy]

The "wise man in parliament", QLD premier Peter Beattie, has now basically said "tough luck. There is no choice. Water is going to be recycled."

Clearly, he voted "CowboyNeal" in that referendum.

- RG>

Re:How about a ballot instead?

[Attaturk]

When I lived in California I was amazed that people actually got to vote on medical marijuana. In the UK such a concept would be considered outrageous. I mean, a county in England, unlike a US state, couldn't even vote to extend pub opening hours.

Won't disagree with much of what you've said but I feel I should point out the scale and population levels involved. Those English counties you mention are a wee bit smaller than their trans-atlantic counterparts. California has a population of nearly 35 million I believe - spread over 400,000 km^2. And Surrey, for example, has a populations closer to one million spread over 1,500 km^2. :)

Re:How about a ballot instead?

[Timbotronic]

The problem with "real democracy" is that there are a lot of ignorant people.

Sure as hell are. Here in Western Australia we've had daylight saving (Summer Time) rejected 3 times by referendum. Objections included worries that daylight saving would fade people's curtains, turn cow's milk sour and increase the incidence of skin cancer.

Despite the "no" votes, WA is currently undergoing a "trial" of daylight saving. 2 weeks ago, when the stunning Comet McNaught was clearly visible on the southern horizon at dusk, several people wrote to the local paper saying how much better it would have looked if the daylight saving trial hadn't occurred and the sky was darker. I shit you not.

Makes you wonder how these people tie their shoelaces in the morning.

Re:How about a ballot instead?

[tuomas_kaikkonen]

I am not sure have you lost a lot living without the constant advertisement bombardment from professional petition buyers. IMHO most people have no clue how to wote on those initiative ballot questions and just flip a mental coin (or mostly choose by calculating how much money they should have to pay for this decision in raised property taxes). Anyhow, the percentage of people who actually bother to vote in USA is so low that only those who think they care and their vote is counted perhaps could also bother stydying the initiatives closer, but I doubt.

What bothers me in the USA (WA state) elections is the requirement to choose a party and just vote for that party's candidates, and the problem of getting anything else but the two biggest parties into ballot.

Let's take this question into one extreme. What would be it like if we had no political parties, but instead just issues that people directly vote on? That said, someone still had to filter only most sane initiatives to ballots, otherwise we would be swaped by initiatives (well, the minimum signature number does limit them somewhat).

It is interesting to see how people balance the workload of the legislature between the paid professional members of the representatives of the people and the people themselves.

Then there is the other dimension that goes from rigid centralized top-down control to total free-for-all to decide anarchy. The zones in USA go along the state, county, and other kind of district lines. What the European Union is heading for seems like this kind of member state, county ,district model, although some countries oppose to this system a lot (especially the monetary system and constitution is opposed by parliamentary monarchies).

Then is also the difference between how well the executive, legislative, and judicial (and some might add monetary as a central bank) power is divided. In parliamentary democracies some argue that the legislative has too much control over the executive. (Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_democra cy )

Anyhow, if you ask me, I would say that most of the times these pseudo-democratic tools are vastly overshadowed by the power of the multinational corporate money. But that is another thread althogether.

Re:How about a ballot instead?

[AGMW]

Both the Scottish and the Welsh devolution referenda were in their respective areas only (ie, The Scots got to vote on Scotland and the Welsh on Wales) but doesn't that seem a little odd? Try asking a class of kids if they should have free sweets! Let's have a referedum on whether Manchester United should be able to field 12 players instead of the more usual 11, but let's only ask the ManU fans - oh, now there's a surprise, they seem to be in favour!

Can no one really see a problem here?

Re:How about a ballot instead?

[AGMW]

when the stunning Comet McNaught was clearly visible on the southern horizon at dusk, several people wrote to the local paper saying how much better it would have looked if the daylight saving trial hadn't occurred and the sky was darker.

When we try and make something idiot proof all that happens is that natural selection defeats us again by providing us with a bigger idiot!

Never understimate the stupidity of people in large groups!

I've often thought that there should be some "qualifying questions" on polling forms to try and show that the voters have at least had a stab at understanding the issues! I'd bet money that elections are won and lost but a large number of voters just turn up and vote the way they did last time without even looking at the issues and promises of the various parties! Perhaps a start would be to remove the affiliated party names from the polling forms so you have to know at least the name of your chosen representative!

Give me a benevolent dictatorship over the current crop of jokers anytime! If the Queen would just use her armed forces to clean house in the Government I really think we'd be better off, and it'd save us a fortune in politicians salaries and election costs too!

Re:How about a ballot instead?

[ZorbaTHut]

Random idea for happy medium, that AFAIK has never been tried:

Elect a group of representatives (at least ten, possibly more for larger cities, more than a hundred is likely overkill.) On all major decisions, first they vote. Then it's given to popular vote also. To overrule the representative vote, the popular vote must equal or exceed their threshold (perhaps minus some adjustment factor, so you can never require 100% of the popular vote). So, for example, there's a bill which is a really good idea, and 80% of the Representatives vote for it. Now 80% or more of the people must vote against it to overrule their decision. So unless it's unbelievably unpopular, it'll pass.

Basically, it gives the reps "more votes", but leaves them still liable to the people's decisions. Hopefully things like "Poowoomba" wouldn't exist because they'd need 95% naysayers, but more controversial votes would end up nearer to 50/50 and be easily swayed by the people.

Not sure if it would be really practical in the end.

Re:How about a ballot instead?

[delinear]

Yeah, I remember the referendum on the war in Iraq when we all voted to, oh, never mind...

Re:How about a ballot instead?

[r3m0t]

No, it wouldn't. The five (ten, twenty, fifty, one hundred) people would just act as clueless as everybody else.

Worst of all, they would have to stop their normal lives because people would keep canvassing and "educating" them on issues. Say hello to your new parliament.

However, your new parliament will not be able to pass anything which could raise taxes, since the population always agrees overwhelmingly on that.

Re:How about a ballot instead?

[SpinyNorman]

Unfortunately, as Bush has demonstrated, in the US the president can still do way more to affect your life than local politicians, and yet due to the electoral college system most Americans (all those not living in the handful of swing states) have ZERO say in national elections.

If your state can't muster more than 49% opposition to the governemt, then your votes will instead be turned around and cast as a vote FOR the party you were attempting to oppose!!! How's that for (American style) "democracy"?!

Give me the UK system any day - at least they get to vote for their leaders in a meaningful way.

Re:How about a ballot instead?

[ZorbaTHut]

I never said it wouldn't essentially be a parliament or a congress. Yes, it would be a group of people more politically powerful than the average person. I mean we already have those in most places.

It'd just be one of those, with an added popular-vote-override option.

And yes, they would be able to, since if they voted 90% to raise taxes and the population only voted 60%, it would be passed. It's essentially a way of saying "no, seriously, we know best, really", while still allowing the population to override them.

'Course it doesn't deal with all the standard issues with the right people getting elected, the "congress" voting to further their own agendas, etc, but it might still be a bit better than what we currently have.

Re:How about a ballot instead?

[r3m0t]

"And yes, they would be able to, since if they voted 90% to raise taxes and the population only voted 60%, it would be passed."

The population would probably vote about 5% to raise taxes, and 95% not to.

Re:How about a ballot instead?

[ZorbaTHut]

In my experience, the population voting outside 65 or 70% is moderately rare, with 90% or more being pretty much unheard of. A lot of propositions pass or fail based on just a few percentage points.

Populism != Democracy

[moehoward]

Populism and democracy are just friends. They are not married. Actually, they are not even the same species. Although some have tried to mate them (Ross Perot is a recent example), it just almost never works. I think we had a populist president in the 1910-1920's in the US.

I voted for Ross Perot twice, even though I completely disagreed with him on NAFTA and a couple of other things. The guy talked and made sense, and his stuff stood up to scrutiny at the time. And heck, at his peek in June 2001, he was polling at 28% in a 3-candidate race (not including undecideds). So, there is room (or there was after the cold war).

Populism leads to regionalism, etc. Ultimately, it leads to socialism.

Re:Populism != Democracy

[westlake]

I think we had a populist president in the 1910-1920's in the US.

The Presidents in this era:

Willliam Howard Taft, later Chief Justice, Republican.
Woodrow Wilson, Democrat.
Warren G. Harding, Republican.

The Populists can be seen at work in the important reforms of this era, the vote for women, the direct election of senators, and so on, but also in Reaction:

Prohibition. Restricted immigration, with rigid racial and ethnic quotas, the revival of the Klu Klux Klan.

Re:Populism != Democracy

[moehoward]

Very good. Thanks for the insight and answer to my sort of question.

Reminds me. I always have to laugh when I think of Nixon's legacy. Always demonized as an evil republican, but he ultimately acted as a populist. For god's sake - price controls on every day needs (bread, milk). Went to China. Ended a war (vietnam) started by a democrat, lowered the voting age to 18, started getting mid-evil on oil companies, etc. Also, look at how he handled Row v. Wade. Hard to argue that he was a Republican in any major decision/policy other than supreme nominations.

Just to be inquisitive because you had an intelligent response, what are your thoughts on these points regarding Nixon?

moe

Re:Populism != Democracy

[Builder]

mid-evil ? So not front or back evil then ?

how many understood the petition they signed

[pbhj]

How many understood the petition they signed? 600,000?

I got an email that was trying to pass off a dated road tax experiment as about-to-be-implemented public policy - see my journal for my full response: http://yro.slashdot.org/~pbhj/journal/160052

When I looked in to it I actually liked the sound of reduced council tax in favour of direct mileage taxation *instead* of vehicle based duty.

Unfortunately there was no "nosign" option. So 600k may have signed but what if 700k that looked at the petition didn't?

Re:how many understood the petition they signed

[arkhan_jg]

We already have direct mileage based taxation. It's petrol duty (+VAT on both). Black box recording to enforce an additional per mile tax is a huge invasion of privacy; especially if they did tie it to using satellites. Yes, for some motorists it would work out a net saving - those that drive hardly at all, but I would imagine for the average motorist, overall tax would go up - after all, someone would have to pay for the system and the management and the enforcement to make sure nobody was tampering, and what's the point of doing it at all if the government gets no more revenue out of it?

It would be a massively over complex and expensive IT solution to a problem that is fixable by other means.

As for a no-sign petition; create a counter petition in favour of the plans. If your 700k in favour of this scheme exist, that will also inform government policy.

Re:how many understood the petition they signed

[pbhj]

>>> "It would be a massively over complex and expensive IT solution to a problem that is fixable by other means."

That's what the experiment aimed to test. The issue is that there is widespread vehicle tax evasion. The idea (I think) was that all vehicle taxes (including those currently taken through petrol tax and congestion charges) would be rolled in to one. Also the premise of the experiment was that this is in a future in which nearly all cars have a satellite tracking system factory fitted (new luxury cars are getting these).

Also no one said that the tax purse wouldn't get more revenue ... just not from me!

>>> "create a counter petition in favour of the plans"

Often those on one side of an argument are more zealous. I wasn't about to go out spamming people to get votes. Also, those viewing one petition and it's arguments wouldn't necessarily consume the counter arguments. So I think an automated "anti-petition" or "nosign" would be a better solution.

Re:how many understood the petition they signed

[Tanamo]

If the aim was just to combine vehicle taxes, it would be far easier and require far less infrastructure to just eliminate road tax and whack some extra on petrol, with a few toll roads like the M6 in particularly bad spots - this would also provide an extra incentive for fuel efficiency...

They actually say on the site that they considered providing a "sign against"/nosign option, but decided that that would just equate to some kind of limited, unrepresentative vote which would confuse the issue, so they resorted to following the same format as paper petitions and simply giving people the option to create a counter petition if they disagreed.

Re:how many understood the petition they signed

[mdwh2]

Often those on one side of an argument are more zealous. I wasn't about to go out spamming people to get votes. Also, those viewing one petition and it's arguments wouldn't necessarily consume the counter arguments. So I think an automated "anti-petition" or "nosign" would be a better solution.

But I would be worried of that backfiring, again because of the other side being more zealous - imagine I set up a petition trying to promote some important cause, but it gets flooded with anti-signatures from a load of zealots; I'll have made things worse for myself than before...

Re:how many understood the petition they signed

[pbhj]

>>> I'll have made things worse for myself than before

*shrugs* democracy sucks, eh!

Not necessarily

[Geof]

Any way one can provide feedback to their government is a valid one.

It really depends who the "one" is. If the mechanism for feedback is open to some but not to others, then it can actually decrease democracy. Lobbying can be criticized on these grounds, because it buys disproportionate influence for some. So can government consultations that exclude important groups.

In Canada, for example, the minister responsible for copyright reform is meeting frequently with CRIA (effectively the Canadian branch of the RIAA), but not with Canadian artists. A similar effect can be achieved more subtly. The use of particular technologies (e.g. requirements for Internet Explorer, or even for Internet access where not all people have it) or procedures (e.g. requirements to comment in person in a different city during working hours), or the restriction of comment to certain groups, can do more harm than good.

Mind you, I'm only criticizing your assertion, not your conclusion. The British effort sounds like a good thing, though I think you're right to be skeptical about the response of government.

Re:Not necessarily

[mpe]

In Canada, for example, the minister responsible for copyright reform is meeting frequently with CRIA (effectively the Canadian branch of the RIAA), but not with Canadian artists.

You'd first need to put together a representative sample. Also ommited is any representation of readers, viewers and listeners.
Of course historically publishers have always been the strongest lobbiests for making and changing copyright laws.

Re:The Top 50 voted on issues

[heinousjay]

Probably because it only matters to a tiny percentage of the population, I would imagine. It's just not a meaningful topic to the vast (and I do mean vast) majority. As soon as programmers comprise a significant portion of the population, this has a chance. Until then, it's a dread special interest group.

Note: please don't read into this comment too deeply regarding my support or lack thereof for any measure. I am deliberately making no such statement at this time.

Ballot initiatives aren't really a very good idea

[Rix]

They encourage short term thinking, and don't consider broader issues.

The US is a socialist country

[Rix]

As are all other developed nations. Capitalism has been quite thoroughly proven to be unstable without a socialist government.

This is a bad Idea

[TheSloth2001ca]

Here in Canada was had a Politician recommend a similar system...

"When former Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day ran for Prime Minister of Canada, he proposed a mechanism to call for a referendum. A petition on any particular subject which gathered at least 350,000 signatures of voting age citizens ("3% of the electors") would automatically trigger a national referendum.

Mercer's "rant" asked viewers to log on to the 22 Minutes website, and sign an online petition asking the party leader to change his name to Doris Day (after the singer/actress). Producers claim to have obtained in excess of 1,200,000 online votes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Hour_Has_22_Minu tes#Stockwell.2FDoris_petition

Re:How about a breath of fresh air instead?

[Atlantis-Rising]

Because the last time the Queen ordered the government to invade a country was when, exactly, again? Oh... humm... 1648? The Thirty Years War? 1337, the Hundred Years War?

A great idea for initiatives/referendums?

[supersat]

I always thought a system like this would be great for initiatives and referendums.

Why would this succeed if electronic voting is so hard? Well, electronic voting is hard because you have to provide security and anonymity. Take out one requirement and it becomes easy. Since initiative and referendum petitions require your name, address, and signature, anonymity is no longer required. Even if security was compromised, the proposals would still have to be voted on in a proper election.

A system like this would also solve a problem with the current system: to get enough signatures, paid signature gathers are virtually required. Good ideas may never see the light of day simply because the financial backing isn't there.

I can't believe

[peepleperson]

that I'm the first to point out that the 33rd most popular petition is for Tony Blair to stand on his head and juggle ice-cream.

Re:I can't believe

[adrianmonk]

the 33rd most popular petition is for Tony Blair to stand on his head and juggle ice-cream.

Two things:

1. That's truly hilarious (in a British sort of a way).
2. If Blair has any brains or political savvy at all, he'll one-up the person who started that petition by waiting until the momentum and press coverage behind it peaks, then announcing that, because he is absolutely committed to being responsive to citizens' needs, he'd be glad to stand on his head and juggle ice cream. And then, of course, he'll actually do it, with skill and aplomb.

Re:I can't believe

[chiskop]

And in 41st place:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to replace the national anthem with 'Gold' by Spandau Ballet.

We would thereby like to table the suggestion that we change the National Anthem to something more modern and appropriate and that will re-invigorate our pride. What we specifically want to see, is that the National Anthem be changed in favour of "Gold" by Spandau Ballet.

Almost two thousand people have signed so far. This is, it should be pointed out, two hundred more than have signed the petition to make software patents clearly unenforcible.

Democracy in action!

Re:I can't believe

[clickclickdrone]

>If Blair has any brains or political savvy at all
Ah... there's the rub.

Re:I can't believe

[darksith69]

More than seeing that petition in action, I would like to meet some of the last 500 british citizens who signed the petition, including:

God, Creator of Worlds

Sam "I hate Tony Blair" Judd

Coco The Clown

Purple

Mungo Jerry

insane volvoman

carinabeana

CLAIREASHENHURST

The Battster

I'm pretty surprised I didn't see any pornstar names in there...

Maybe they could learn from the Indian president

[liftphreaker]

The Indian president took the initiative to open up to people via the net. It did prove itself as an easy and effective way to communicate.

Here

Dr Graffin's "Web-surdities"

[Tiro]

One of my favorite writers posted about this a few years back. After reflecting upon his thoughts, I concluded that assembling mass support for an issue depends on individuals' personal/emotional involvement. That interest and enthusiasm can be multiplied by getting people together in physical proximity, which energizes them. Having a lot of loud, energized people in the capital city is a lot more compelling to the rest of society than an "e-protest".

Here is the link to the article: http://badreligion.com/news/essays.php?id=8. He has since become a Ph.D and a biology instructor at UCLA.

To quote from the first two paragraphs:

Recently, I read an article in the paper that related the growing trend of "Digital Demonstrators" (Wall Street Journal, Dec. 3, 1998). It said that "virtual marches" could be an effective way to bring about social change. It stated that "activists can demonstrate with a mouse click...

This really pissed me off! First of all, it is a gross misrepresentation of what motivates social and political change. Ultimately, social change comes from an emotionally based behavior pattern. The reason people change in unison is because we are united by a similar emotional response. We are not moved to change the laws if we don't have an emotional experience that connects us to the political issue.

Obligatory Democrabus

[BlastM]

This has been an exciting and successful new experiment in democracy. People get the impression that their opinions matter, and politicians divert attention away from things of importance!

So how long now until the House of Lords is turned into a bus to take democracy literally To The People?

Re:How about a breath of fresh air instead?

[Bogtha]

The queen is head of parliament.

People who aren't from the UK often get confused by this. The Queen, for all practical purposes, has no political power. No monarch has entered the House of Commons in well over three centuries.

The last time they tried it was in 1642 — Charles I tried to arrest five MPs for treason, and the House of Commons told him to bugger off. Shortly afterwards he was defeated in civil war, and parliament created a court to put a monarch on trial for the first time in history — he ended up being executed.

These days, the monarch's representatives don't even enter the House of Commons unless they have permission from the Members of Parliament. They rarely even express any political opinions.

Lots of people read history books about how kings and queens used to be dictators, but that's exactly what it is — history. The monarchy is an anachronism; a leftover we use mainly as a tourist attraction. We don't "recall" them because there's no point, not because we can't.

Re:How about a breath of fresh air instead?

[bky1701]

Funny, see, no one ever asked ME about the DMCA, net neutrality, copyright extension ad nauseam, the PATRIOT Act... need I go on? Needless to say, medical marijuana is still "bad".

Democracy theater, that's all we have. Important issues are ALL left up to the "wise" ones in the senate.

"you're not the boss of me now"

[adrianmonk]

A little bit of a tangent, but I gotta ask: am I the only one who thinks of the TV show Malcolm in the Middle when I see Slashdot stories tagged as "maybe, yes, no"? I always find myself singing "Can you repeeeeat the queeeestion?" when I see stores like this one.

And yes, this will probably be totally irrelevant to readers in the UK, who likely don't see episodes of that show (although I could be wrong).

Re:"you're not the boss of me now"

[bloobloo]

Of course we get (got?) MitM!

This is modern Britain

[Budenny]

"Is this a valid way to provide feedback to the government or merely an exercise in keeping the populace happy?"

Neither. It is a way of compiling a database of potential troublemakers.

Re:How about a breath of fresh air instead?

[alext]

This is utter nonsense, it was entirely the GG's initiative. He represents the Queen completely, for her even to have been consulted would have been a breach of protocol.

And I've no idea what you mean by "double dissolution" as a cause, perhaps you mean dissolution was the effect?

Only in Australia

[StrahdVZ]

The Queensland Government has a similar website.

Inevitably, the current e-petition with the most signatures involves.... rugby league.

The problem with a petition against ID cards...

[simm1701]

If you are against ID cards (and I am) are you really going to put your name and address on a petition stored in a database the goverment run?

I mean really?

Re:The problem with a petition against ID cards...

[coastwalker]

It would be cowardly not to. The problem with the ID card system and the state database is its potential for misuse not paranoia that the death squads will be on the street next week. The most likely problem comes when different departments of Government start data mining the information collected for excuses to impose penalties or deny services to individuals to save money. Government security organisations already have the ability to mine most databases for what they regard as suspicious individuals and this is unstoppable. What is most objectionable is that petty bureaucrats be allowed to pick off the tails of the normal distribution and discriminate against them. The first rule of Engineering is that if you want to control something then you have to measure it first.

Re:The problem with a petition against ID cards...

[margam_rhino]

We already have a database with (almost) everyone's name and address in it, its called the electoral role. So putting my name and address on a petition does not bother me in the slightest.

Re:The problem with a petition against ID cards...

[ZorbaTHut]

I would. I personally don't plan to do anything that would make the ID card system bad for me personally - I'm not afraid of the government knowing who I am.

I still think it's an awful idea, but that's in aggregate, not for individual people. Even if I'm likely to never be affected by it, thousands upon thousands will, and I'd be willing to put myself slightly more on the line in order to help protect them.

In some ways it's a pity I'm not in the UK, so I can't make my voice heard, but on the other hand . . . I'm really glad I'm not in the UK, honestly.

If I remember rightly.....

[mormop]

There was a "consultation" as to whether the British wanted ID cards. Something like 80% were against so the government declared that the online part would be ignored because it had obviously been hijacked by the "anti brigade". After this, ID cards were sledge hammered through.

I suspect at the end of the petition period there's a shortcut on some government lackey's desktop marked "Send to Trashcan" that you can just drag and drop results you don't want onto.

Sorry if I sound a bit cynical but for all the banging on about democracy, Blair has proved, if nothing else, that he can turn a deaf ear at a seconds notice.

Re:If I remember rightly.....

[Builder]

If I remember right, they got cuter than that... They couldn't totally ignore the on-line responses, so they counted all of them as 1. That's right, the 1000s of people who sent e-mails and filled out the forms were counted as 1 response.

Re:How about a breath of fresh air instead?

[TapeCutter]

"This is utter nonsense, it was entirely the GG's initiative. He represents the Queen completely, for her even to have been consulted would have been a breach of protocol."

You must have missunderstood the bit where I said "via the governer general". Perhaps I was unclear, or perhaps your comprehension sucks, either way I apologise if I gave the impression that the Queen was personally involved in the sacking.

Having said that, the Queen "did it", she just didn't know "she dun it" until after the fact and thus preserved her apolitical stance, a matter of protocol only.

For your edification, section 58 of the Australian constitution:
"When a proposed law passed by both Houses of Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure." - ie: Every law is rubber stamped by the Queen, but she avoids getting any ink on her own fingers.

"And I've no idea what you mean by "double dissolution" as a cause, perhaps you mean dissolution was the effect?"

Your tell me I speak "utter nonsense", yet you don't have a clue what a double dissolution is? Can you see now, how it "caused" Australia's "constitutional crisis"?

To summarize, Notice the part in section 58 that says "passed by both Houses of Parliament", Labour had the house of reps and Liberal had the senate, the senate "blocked supply" to force an election, ie: the GG could not use his rubber stamp because bills were not getting past both houses. This is not a unique situation, the difference was that Gough decided to play hard ball by repeatedly presenting the bills to the senate rather than withdrawing the bills or calling an election (using "protocol" an election should be called after the second rejection by the senate). Gough deliberately ignored "protocol" and created a legislative and fiscal deadlock that required some sort of "cuircuit breaker". He could have preemptively sacked the GG, but the GG got in first. And yes the "circuit breaker" was in effect a dissolution of the government but as you can see, that is not what I meant!

Personally I think it was a perfectly pragmatic thing to do, and if Gough had not made the GG's actions the one and only issue in his re-election campaign he would have stood a much better chance of gaining the mandate he thought he had when he was sacked. All it did, (to anyone who understood the issue at the time), was make him look like a spoilt brat that couldn't get his own way, the opposition fought the election by critsising the laws they were refusing to pass and largely ignored the contraversy by stating they were "using the constitution as a means to ask the people to decide", that effectively painted Gough as a "pinko", unsurprisingly they won. The constitution "worked" and nothing changed in that respect, the real legacy of Gough was universal health cover that now recieves strong bi-lateral support, but most people remeber him as the PM that got sacked.

How do I know all this - I was there then, and I'm still here now.

Re:How about a breath of fresh air instead?

[thetroll123]

>1337, the Hundred Years War?

1337? Shouldn't that be "teh hu|\|Dr3D y3aRz \/\/aR" then?

Re:How about a breath of fresh air instead?

[TapeCutter]

PS: The reason Gough diliberately clogged up the works? - A big part of his government's "agenda" was to change Australia into a Republic with an Australian head of state, his sacking was the result of an ill-concived plan to force the "issue" to a climax.

Big success for the government

[Dan100]

This website was a stroke of genius for the government. Before, every few months they had the very embarrassing spectacle of the large wad of a paper petition being hand-delivered to Downing Street, usually with the petitioner flanked by photographers, with the result that the petition and its issue was splashed across the newspapers the next day.

The last one I know of was a anti-drink driving campaign last December, where the parents of a teenager who'd been killed by a drunk delivered 16,000 signatures to No 10 calling for tighter drink-driving laws. The poor lad's picture was in all the papers the day after.

Since the introduction of this website, that's all stopped. These petitions garner nothing more than a short story buried in BBC News. Downing Street is over-joyed as it has cut off another source of embarrassment.

Re:Big success for the government

[CmdrGravy]

Indeed, and now you're no longer to protest or make any political statements anywhere near Parliment or Number 10 the Government moves one step closer to disassociating its self totally from the political views of the populace.

Re:Big success for the government

[mdwh2]

That's a good point - and I think that's a good thing for most of us, in that often these petitions were a vocal minority who suddenly got a large amount of publicity, and the Government was forced into implementing stupid or unnecessary laws as a result. Not that drink-driving is anything I'd condone of course, but there are plenty of examples where people have claimed all sorts of things should be banned for dubious reasons (usually playing on the emotive example of some poor dead person).

My fear with this website is it would allow more people to do this, but as you say, if they don't get the publicity, then the effect is greatly reduced.

Protests

[MrSteveSD]

If they can ignore 1 Million people marching in London against the Iraq war, they can certainly ignore 600,000 on some website. What you really need is something like the Swiss system where the public can instigate a referendum. All they have to do is get a certain number of signatures together to kick off the process.

There is an anti-software-patent petition: sign!

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

If you are eligible ("a British citizen or resident"), sign the petition against software patents: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/softwarepatents/

And pass it on to everyone you know. It only has 1,800 signatures right now and the deadline is Feb 20th. And if you want to learn more about software patents, try:

• http://ciaran.compsoc.com/software-patents.html
• http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/swpat/swpat.en.h tml
• http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-2004-05-24.html
• http://ifso.ie/documents/ifso-2005-11-18.html

Million Moron March

[Grashnak]

Anyone can set up an internet petition and get idiots to sign it. 99.99% of such things should just be ignored as the bleating of ignorant sheep. Most people lack understanding of even the least complex of issues faced by governments today, yet they flock to internet petitions demanding the the government "fix healthcare" or "stop global warming", as if those were check-boxes that the government could just flick on or off. I'm all in favour of internet discussions/forums/chats that involve an actual exchange of views or at least the transmission of information, but having people simply add their l33t handle to an internet petition is meaningless. Oh, and I almost forgot, sign my petition to nerf Paladins.

Re:How about a breath of fresh air instead?

[TapeCutter]

Judging by the way the mods are going up and down, I think I struck a raw nerve with some ancient history.

This has to be done.

[Sqreater]

We have a democratic moral imperative to expand democracy if the tools to do so exist. I applaud the British and Prime Minister Tony Blair for their polling website. The political ancestors who set up our democratic governments were geniuses, but we living today potentially have political geniuses too. We must evolve democratic governments in this time of technology or put the lie to the espoused foundational principles that empower them. You cannot support democracy while at the same time declaring the people to be a mindless mob deserving to be feared. You cannot have it both ways.

P.S. About ten or 15 years ago I wrote a Constitutional Amendment example for the US Constitution that empowered the US Congress to set up an electronic voting/polling system and tasking it with examining the state-of-the-art in technology every ten years to see if it could expand the influence of the people of the United States using developing technology. I did not set this up for publication as a letter to the editor, but I sent it to a national newspaper then as worthy of thought. I'm very happy to see some movement in this direction, but disappointed at the resistance there seems to be to any technological evolution of democracy in the United States.

P.P.S. As an American citizen, I'm more than a little tired of a Presidency that lives in a museum, and a Legislature that works in one. It indicates a love for the past that denies any need to develop into the future. Isn't it time we had our own buildings? Isn't it time to say thanks to the Greeks and Romans and move on? After all, we are entering a new Millennium. If we have a trillion dollars to go to worthless Mars and the Moon, I think we can justify some rebuilding, some updating instead. The people who lived 150 years ago are not our superiors and should not have the last say, architecturally, for this country for all time.

Its a scam

[ibbo]

Its a scam, this gov will not listen to the people. It has not done for the last ten years and it will not untill we get rid of them. The website is probably for statistical gathering so they can get a feel on whats not good for them (which at present is everything).

If your gov gets one of these in it means you have passed democracy by and have reverted to an older form of government called despotism.

Re:How about a breath of fresh air instead?

[alext]

Yes the failure to dissolve both houses precipitated the crisis (Whitlam instead requested an election for half the Senate), but actual dissolution didn't happen until afterwards; in fact it wasn't decided upon until after the govt was dismissed. So presenting the double dissolution as the cause is pretty tortured logic.

Re:How about a breath of fresh air instead?

[TapeCutter]

"Since the Australia Act (1986), it is unlawful for The Queen of Australia to take advice from any party other than The Queen's Privy Council for Australia"

Thank-you AC, you taught me something I didn't know (or had forgotten after 1986).

I really don't understand why my post has attracted such negative attention. The GG did sack the govt of the day in "the Queen's name", and I made it perfectly clear that I was speculating "she" would have the same powers in the UK. I agree with another proposition than someone made about the royals basically being a tourist attraction but they also weild a fair bit of influence on the international stage.

Personally I belive Whitlam wanted the sack so as to further his "vision" of a republic. By time the election was held, the issue was too nebulous for most of the electorate, who, (as the opposition slogan went), "were getting their say" anyway. To most people the election "solved" the problem, they were then "free" to listen to the only other message ie: the opposition claimed his social reforms were communisim by stealth and would bankrupt the country - checkmate.

The "constitutional crisis" of the 70's was the quinessentail "storm in a tea cup" of Australian politics.

BTW: As a "tourist attraction", the Queen did the exact opposite to me when I recently visited the UK. I chose to see St Pauls rather than the guy's with the fuzzy hats. I get to St Pauls at 9:30 am only to find the Queen has it booked ALL DAY for one of her numerous 80th birthday bashes. All the coffee shops were full of people in top hats and tails, it looked surreal seeing hoards of people in formal attire coming up the stairs from the tube. OTOH: The "bobby" who told us the bad news was an excellent "tourist attraction", very entertaining, had us laughing about the situation within 2min. We spent a whole day at the British Museam instead of the planned half day, awsome building and contents but I'm still pissed off about St Pauls!

Re:How about a breath of fresh air instead?

[TapeCutter]

Granted I could have picked a more logical "cause", in fact there isn't really a "cause" to stick to pin it on. It was a chain of events starting with the electorate's apparent desire to force compromise by voting for the same balance of power both before and after the "crisis", the eventual "compromise" was the joint sitting.

The Australian electorate (consiously or otherwise), was saying: we like the social reforms of the left but we want the conservatives to do the bookeeping. The same political worldview is still common today, however it is currently expressed in state vs fedral politics.

Re:If I remember rightly.....its worse than that

[trmcdougle]

And further more had been specifically asked in advance if they would count them seperately, or as 1, and promised that they would count them seperately.