Mostly Theater? Taking Aim At White House 'We the People' Petitions

theodp writes: "Since we launched We the People in 2011," wrote the White House last month, "millions of Americans have engaged with their government on the issues that matter to them. This groundbreaking online platform has made petitioning the government, a First Amendment right, more accessible than ever. Over the past few years, the Obama administration has taken a stance on a number of causes that citizens really care about and used the We the People petition platform to voice their concerns." Sounds good, but even if the White House is listening to We the People petitions, as it assured skeptics, one wonders what — and who — exactly they are listening to. Petitions suffer from being aye-only, lack identity and location verification, and appear to have other data quality issues. One attempting to explore the petition data for the 67,022-and-counting signers of a new petition urging a quick response to a court decision that could cut the time international STEM students can work in the U.S. on student visas after graduation, for example, would be stymied by thousands of missing and non-U.S. postal codes. Plotting what location info is available does show that the petitioners are clustered around tech and university hubs, hardly a surprise, but it sheds no context on whether these represent corporate, university, and/or international student interests.

Comments

Remember the "change" he promised?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like the "Change!" he promised us ...
 
Just like the "Universal Insurance" he promised us ...
 
Just like so many other lies that he has told us ...
 
How can anyone treat that "petition' thing seriously?

Yer Kidding, Right?

[sycodon]

Did anyone ever think it was anything other than Theater?

Really? You thought that???

Facepalm!

Re:Yer Kidding, Right?

[NotDrWho]

Exactly. The only voices that really get "heard" in Washington are those that come with the gift of big campaign contributions or with the threat of a lot of bad PR. It's been that way pretty much since the beginning, though it's gotten a LOT worse more recently (with the rise of huge megacorporations, rising campaign costs, and the effective removal of all restrictions on campaign contributions).

Re:Yer Kidding, Right?

[hey!]

Well, as a software designer I learned two lessons about clients that are probably relevant to how politicians deal with constituents:

(1) Clients seldom know what they want precisely enough to do anything about, and when they do have precise ideas they're usually bad.

(2) It's really critical to listen to what clients think they want.

Call it "theater" if you will, but it's really naive to think the petition thing is supposed to be some kind of exercise in direct democracy. It's not. It's an exercise in constituent relations.

Re:Yer Kidding, Right?

[digsbo]

It's an exercise in constituent relations.

Given that almost everybody is now calling it theater, would you say it had a positive impact on constituent relations?

This is Important to Discuss

[ohnocitizen]

Ignore all the comments going "this was expected" or "did you expect anything else"? Those add nothing to the discussion and are worthless. This isn't about whether you support Obama across all of his actions and positions. It is about this specific tool, its problems in its current incarnation, and its promise. I'm disappointed the White House has ignored so many petitions, and the lack of data/flexibility in response is something worth exploring. Imagine a more robust and secure version of this tool, and one that the White House responded more vigorously to. Or one that Congress responded to. I'd love to see it. I'd love to see us move closer to Democracy by putting more power in the hands of regular citizens. Let's talk about how to make that happen.

Re:This is Important to Discuss

[Sarten-X]

Precisely.

The First Amendment guarantees the right to petition the government, but it does not guarantee that you'll get your way or even that your concerns will be considered important.

Frankly, that's a good thing. There have been a number of petitions asking the executive branch to effectively suspend rule of law and interfere with court cases. There have been a lot of petitions seeking to jeopardize foreign relations, and a good number simply asking for the impossible.

To expect petitions to require a change opens the country up to tyranny of the majority. Sure, the population will get the near-sighted quick fixes it wants, but the longer-term costs will typically not be considered until long after the right time to fix them.

Re:This is Important to Discuss

[argStyopa]

"Those add nothing to the discussion and are worthless."
No, because opportunity costs are a thing.
Having a fanciful belief that something works leads to a lot of wasted effort and energy that could be more usefully guided toward something that is accomplishable.

Oh, re your point about "move closer to Democracy"? You realize that as recently as 2011, "democracy" would have cheerfully banned gay marriage?
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/0...
Understand that "democracy" isn't a bunch of enlightened hipsters with progressive views deciding policy around their non-dairy lattes. Democracy can be ugly, reactionary, and easily manipulated.

"We the People" is just talk

[GuB-42]

The petitions only require the government to provide an answer to the question. Nowere it is stated that they must change their plans in any way.
In other words "fuck you" is a totally valid answer.

It is a petiotion

[houghi]

Petion : a formal written request, typically one signed by many people, appealing to authority in respect of a particular cause.

It is a petition. That means they do not mean change or even investigation. It just measures interest.

In a company they can hold a petition and people all (100%) want to have more pay.Some (20%) want to have a dedicated smoking area.
They do not respond to the first one; and do repond to the second one and even do it.

To me petitions are ALWAYS flawed as they do not mean anything. With the smokers: only 20% wanted a dedicated smoking area. What did the 80% want?

Where do you sign if you are not in favour of the petition? Not that I am in favour or against, but if I am not even given the ability to do that, whatr does it mean? It means that petitions are not votes.

They are just a measurement tool of interest and that is all. They do not mean anything else beyond that and if you do not understand what a petition is, why are you writing your name on it?

The linked maps are mostly meaningless

[natbrooks]

https://xkcd.com/1138/

Because petitioners tend to be people, and people (oddly enough) cluster around regions of high population density.

Re: Suffer from identity verification?

[Anonymous Coward]

The main purpose of a petition is to show that there are X number of people who support (or oppose) Y, with the assumption that all those signatures will have some sort of effect on policy. Traditionally, a list of names are what's used to measure the 'impact' of the petition. With the Internet, we don't strictly need identifying information like that anymore.

A side-effect of a petition (with identifying information), is that you can look up who supports...say "deportation of illegal immigrants." I could very easily get fired just for having my name next to that "bad opinion" on the Internet. How much will my name on that list change policy? Not at all, most likely. How much will my name on that list affect my personal life? Maybe very dramatically. Not worth it.

Not everybody needs to be a die-hard activist for everything. Sometimes I think the world would be a nicer place if we stood by our beliefs a little less. But, maybe that's just me. People are free to disagree.