Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Government Your Rights Online

We The People Petition Signature Requirement Bumped To 100,000 337

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

We The People Petition Signature Requirement Bumped To 100,000

Comments Filter:
  • by mellon ( 7048 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @05:41PM (#42609129) Homepage

    This petition [], asking the White House to censure the prosecutor responsible for Aaron Swartz' felony case, will need a lot more signatures if they apply this standard to it. So now would be a good time to go sign it.

  • by icebike ( 68054 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @06:33PM (#42609943)

    They did respond to the marijuana one. They just didn't give the answer the people who signed it wanted.

    I'm kind of baffled why people were shocked they got a response that said they weren't interested in legalizing marijuana, when that was ALWAYS his point of view.

    Asking the President to legalize marijuana is the wrong way to go. Just get it on your State ballots and problem solved.
    When enough states legalize it, those representatives and senators will force the feds to legalize it, or withhold all enforcement
    funds until DEA removes it from the banned list.

  • by brkello ( 642429 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @06:54PM (#42610253)

    I think the problem is that any answer they come up with that disagrees with your own will be considered "bullshit".

    Perfect example is the pro-legalization crowd. This has never been something Obama was interested in pursuing. Yeah, I think it is dumb and illogical to waste money on putting people in jail instead of taxing and regulating it just as much as the next guy. The political reality is that it isn't there yet at a national level. So keep fighting in the states, as enough states change, so will the country.

    Additionally, even if Obama would 100% agree with the petition, he is dealing with Republicans who would vote no against a bill that made it illegal to shoot kittens.

  • by Kindgott ( 165758 ) <soulwound@gEULER ... m minus math_god> on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @06:56PM (#42610311) Journal
    That's basically the one which made me only sign petitions for the troll factor from then on.
  • Re:Translation (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mrbester ( 200927 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @07:03PM (#42610415) Homepage

    Everyone is latching on to the Death Star petition (which got a reasonable answer in my opinion. An aide who loves Star Wars took the time to compose that response. Compare with more serious petitions that just got a boilerplate answer).

    I don't think this is about the joke petitions but about the speed of getting 25000 signatories for the removal of publicity hound Carmen Ortiz because of her part in Aaron Swartz's suicide. She's part of The Establishment, they want to keep her so it is far better to raise the bar than address a perceived problem.

  • by NeutronCowboy ( 896098 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @07:38PM (#42610875)

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

    Ugh. Here's a quick refresher on terminology:
    Republic []. Or at least a very good overview of the definitions that you'll find in dictionaries.
    Democracy []. Or at least a very good overview of the definitions that you'll find in dictionaries.
    A democracy is a subset of a republic. A direct democracy is a subset of both a republic and a democracy. A "Constitutional Republic with democratically elected Representation" is a subset of both a republic and a democracy. You can't have a democracy without a republic, but you can have a republic without a democracy (leaders chosen at random is one example).

    I really wish conservatives wouldn't invent new meanings to words just so that they don't have to update their world view.

  • by gandhi_2 ( 1108023 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @10:35PM (#42612499) Homepage

    Liberals believe that Liberty is given to you by the government.

    The whole idea that Liberty is given to you by your God, and therefor not up to a government to take away... you know, the Enlightenment ideas that gave rise to the US Constitution, well that's just old racists talking.

    So the old "Rights" of free speech, have a gun if you want, worship how you want.... that shits on the Liberal Chopping Block. To be replaced with mandatory socialist-issued healthcare as a "right".

    The hell of it is they used the system created by Freedom-loving people and are redirecting it to a Marxist wonderland.

If I set here and stare at nothing long enough, people might think I'm an engineer working on something. -- S.R. McElroy