Slashdot Mirror


We The People Petition Signature Requirement Bumped To 100,000

New submitter schneidafunk writes with news that the White House is raising the signature requirement for petitions from 25,000 to 100,000. From the source: "When we first raised the threshold — from 5,000 to 25,000 — we called it 'a good problem to have.' Turns out that 'good problem' is only getting better, so we're making another adjustment to ensure we’re able to continue to give the most popular ideas the time they deserve. ... In the first 10 months of 2012, it took an average of 18 days for a new petition to cross the 25,000-signature threshold. In the last two months of the year, that average time was cut in half to just 9 days, and most petitions that crossed the threshold collected 25,000 signatures within five days of their creation. More than 60 percent of the petitions to cross threshold in all of 2012 did so in the last two months of the year."

18 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by killfixx · · Score: 5, Funny

    "We're so pleased at the response, we're going to make it that much more difficult to earn a response from this office. Good luck!"

    Shenanigans.

    Next stop, 1 Million!

    Yay.

    --
    "Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
    1. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps if people stopped submitting nonsense petitions there wouldn't be a need to adjust the threshold for an official response.

    2. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by biek · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's no way there are 75,000 more people on the internet with nothing to do.

    3. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Y'know guys... if there's an overwhelming number of petitions to dramatically change things, maybe, just maybe, you should consider actually fixing shit that's constantly being petitioned about instead of saying "no, fuck you", and closing the petition.

      Okay. How about if there's an overwhelming number of petitions for ridiculous garbage like building Death Stars or annexing Canada? What should they consider doing then?

      I'm thinking they should raise the number of signatures that trigger a response, but that's just me.

    4. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps if they stopped submitting nonsense responses there wouldn't be a need to submit nonsense petitions.

    5. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Your.Master · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the threshold were 1, it would clearly be too time consuming.

      If the threshold were 300 million, where you need near-unanimous support, it would not.

      Finding the right balance, especially when the response rate is increasing, is nontrivial. You must also consider the petitions that aren't utter nonsense but are stupid or impractical for non-obvious reasons, and the fact that even for valid petitions you can only consider so many unless you want to burn another $200k per year taxpayer money for more help.

      I don't know how much time is actually spent on nonsense petitions (I saw a few), bad petitions, etc., and I don't know what a reasonable projection is, but there's no reason to be married to the number 25000. Maybe the right number is more. It might even be less, but I honestly though 25k was a bit low in the age of the Internet. A single tweet from a high-profile celebrity would be almost guaranteed to turn into a petition no matter what its merits.

    6. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by dnahelicase · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In a democracy *the people* are the arbiters of what is 'nonsense' and what is not. Not some jumped up bureaucrat or an AC fascist apologist. While I might not agree with the Death Star petition, nor the Sharia for USA petition, it doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the chance to put anything to their fellow citizens and have the White House consider them without raising the threshold to un-democratically restrictive levels.

      I think people should be allowed to put anything forward, and they still can, the threshold is just bigger before the White House will recognize it.

      Given how these have taken off, I don't feel like this is unreasonable or in any way undemocratic. If it only takes about a week to get 25k, it seems like 100k should be in reach if its a half decent petition.

      I mean, isn't that around 0.03% of the population? Up from around 0.008%?

    7. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by johnny+cashed · · Score: 5, Informative

      Check your facts, the USA is a democratic republic . It is not a pure, mob rule democracy. And that is a good thing.

    8. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The White House itself demonstrated that the petitions were worthless long before any sarcastic petition got approved. 75,000 people asked why Cannabis could not be regulated like alcohol. The White House had the drug czar, who is statutorily prohibited from advocating for drug law reform, respond. He failed to mention alcohol once.

      If the White House won't treat our petitions with respect, why should we treat their petition site with respect?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Informative

      In a democracy

      This isn't a democracy - it's a Constitutional Republic with democratically elected Representation. Worlds of difference.

      While I might not agree with the Death Star petition, nor the Sharia for USA petition, it doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the chance to put anything to their fellow citizens and have the White House consider them without raising the threshold to un-democratically restrictive levels.

      Caveat - I completely agree.

      However, you don't need democracy for that - the Constitution guarantees your right, as an individual, to petition the government for redress of grievances. Group participation is not a requirement.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by MatrixCubed · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bloody peasant.

    11. Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 5, Informative

      Especially the one about the TSA. They didn't even try to make it seem as if they actually care in that case.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  2. Re:Time to sign the Aaron Swartz prosecutor petiti by mellon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Crap, broken link. This one should work.

  3. How about a petition to lower the requirement? by Forever+Wondering · · Score: 5, Funny

    Getting 100,000 signatures on a petition to lower the requirement to 50,000 might have just the right touch of irony ...

    --
    Like a good neighbor, fsck is there ...
  4. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Making jokes out of serious attempts to make political headway on important issues

    Ah hahahahahahaha.

    Wait, you're serious? The jokes are the only ones getting attention because people have realised just how pointless putting a real issue up for debate is. Bring up anything remotely important, and all you'll get is the canned response about how the current policies are best.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  5. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd hardly call these petitions a "serious attempt to make political headway." People figured out pretty early on, from responses like that to the highly earnest pot legalization petition, that the White House was basically going to be using these things to trot out boilerplate responses and the occasional cutesy "haha, Star Wars reference" fluff piece. Better that people recognize these petition responses for the pointless PR exercise they are than labor under the delusion that this (or any) administration cares that a few thousand people have signed a viral internet petition. If you want to actually influence the policy of either political party on a federal level, you better bring a few hundred million dollars (or a few thousand swing state voters) to the table.

  6. Re:Thanks to the jokesters by pclminion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thanks to those who started petitions for Master Chief statues, roaming motorcycle gangs of justices, and Death Stars. Without you folks making jokes out of serious attempts to make political headway on important issues, we might not have had our collective voices diluted.

    You have it exactly backward. People did take it seriously. Only when it became apparent that the administration did not also take it seriously, did we begin to deliberately mock the system with these made-up issues. It is clear the administration doesn't care what petitioners are saying. By filling the queue with ridiculous nonsense we are perpetrating a satire designed to expose the false nature of the thing.

    When the administration takes it seriously then we will also. We started in good faith and received only bullshit in response. Now we're feeding the bullshit back into the system.

  7. And the WH isn't BS'ing? by sconeu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because responding to a petition to eliminate (or reform -- I can't remember) the TSA by having the HEAD OF THE F***ING TSA tell us about the awesomeness of his department, and completely ignoring the issues raised by the petitioners isn't making a joke of the process?

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.