White House

COMMENTARY: Got a Problem You Want the White House to Fix? E-Petition It!

New effort to use online power to push government

White House Online Petition
National Journal
By Alexander Howard
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
By Alexander Howard
Sept. 9, 2011, 11:46 a.m.

The First Amend­ment of the We the People next month, that con­sti­tu­tion­al right will be form­ally brought in­to the di­git­al age. 

“When I ran for this of­fice, I pledged to make gov­ern­ment more open and ac­count­able to its cit­izens,” Pres­id­ent Obama says at White­House.gov. “That’s what the new We the People fea­ture on White­House.gov is all about — giv­ing Amer­ic­ans a dir­ect line to the White House on the is­sues and con­cerns that mat­ter most to them.”

While some polit­ic­al com­ment­at­ors will in­ev­it­ably tie this ini­ti­at­ive to the gear­ing up of the 2012 cam­paign, there is a big idea em­bed­ded in this launch, go­ing back to the ori­gin­al com­pact between the Amer­ic­an people and its gov­ern­ment. Pe­ti­tions have played an im­port­ant role in the na­tion’s his­tory, from the Vir­gin­ia Le­gis­lature to Quakers pe­ti­tion­ing the co­lo­ni­al gov­ern­ment and Con­tin­ent­al Con­gress to ab­ol­ish slavery. The White House will not be bound to make policy based upon e-pe­ti­tions, but they have giv­en the na­tion a power­ful new of­fi­cial way to use the In­ter­net as a plat­form for col­lect­ive ac­tion, mak­ing their di­git­al voices heard. CNN re­por­ted that ad­vocacy groups are eager for e-pe­ti­tions to go live.

White House Dir­ect­or of Di­git­al Strategy Ma­con Phil­lips an­nounced e-pe­ti­tions with a blog post at White­House.gov and a video, em­bed­ded be­low, where he ex­plained how White House e-pe­ti­tions will work. “With We the People, we’re of­fer­ing a new way to sub­mit an on­line pe­ti­tion on a range of is­sues — and get an of­fi­cial re­sponse,” he wrote, in­vit­ing people to sign up for e-mail up­dates when the func­tion goes live.

Here are the key takeaways:

  • Cit­izens will be able to cre­ate or sign e-pe­ti­tions on a “range of is­sues” — it’s not clear yet wheth­er cit­izens can define their own is­sues or will have to choose from a list.
  • If an e-pe­ti­tion gath­ers more than 5,000 sig­na­tures in 30 days, White House of­fi­cials will re­view and an­swer it.
  • Ini­tially, an e-pe­ti­tion will have a unique URL that only its cre­at­or knows. “It’s up to that per­son to share it in their net­work to gath­er an ini­tial amount of sig­na­tures — ini­tially 150 — be­fore it is search­able on White­House.gov,” wrote Phil­lips. In this con­text, a “net­work” means on­line so­cial net­works, like Twit­ter or Face­book.

Des­pite that ex­plan­a­tion, there are still many ques­tions that re­main in terms of how e-pe­ti­tions will fit in­to a 21st cen­tury e-demo­cracy. As Phil­lips re­cog­nized, the United States isn’t the first to try this: the United King­dom of­fers e-pe­ti­tions, and ac­cord­ing to Phil­lips, their work “was very help­ful as we de­veloped our own.” The sticky e-wid­get there is that the UK dropped e-pe­ti­tions late last year as the new prime min­is­ter came in­to of­fice, due to neg­at­ive pub­li­city and oth­er is­sues, be­fore re­launch­ing it again.

Reas­on­ably, we can ex­pect there to be sim­il­ar chal­lenges with the White House ver­sion. The UK has since re­launched its e-pe­ti­tions site, as Phil­lips points out in his blog post. Down the road, the e-pe­ti­tions code on Git­hub from the UK may be­come avail­able to the pub­lic. Giv­en the sup­port for open source that Philips has demon­strated over the past three years, in­clud­ing con­tri­bu­tions back to the code­base of Drupal, it’s pos­sible that the White House might re­lease the tool to states or na­tions that are par­ti­cip­at­ing in the Open Gov­ern­ment Part­ner­ship.

Ques­tions From We the People

Phil­lips took ques­tions for White House about We the People, us­ing the feed­back form at White House.gov and pub­licly on Twit­ter, us­ing the hasht­ag #WHWeb, where he re­spon­ded as @ma­con­44.

For in­stance, when asked by Nancy Scola wheth­er the think­ing with We the People is to “have @white­house act as [a] clear­ing­house for pe­ti­tions dir­ec­ted to­wards agen­cies,” Phil­lips replied: “People shouldn’t have to de­cipher how the ex­ec­ut­ive branch is or­gan­ized in or­der to speak out about an is­sue. Pro­cessing in­com­ing pe­ti­tions handled by WH, but rel­ev­ant pe­ti­tions will be co­ordin­ated w/oth­ers as needed, in­clud­ing Agen­cies.”

Here’s a quick run­down of the rest of the ques­tions and an­swers:

Why do pe­ti­tions at all? “On­line pe­ti­tions are com­monly un­der­stood, and pe­ti­tions have been part of our demo­cracy since the be­gin­ning,” he tweeted.

Who can par­ti­cip­ate? “Par­ti­cip­a­tion in We the People is open to the gen­er­al pub­lic (13yrs+) and re­quires a val­id email ad­dress,” he tweeted.

Do you have to be a cit­izen? “Right now the sys­tem only re­quires val­id email and does not veri­fy cit­izen­ship,” tweeted Phil­lips.

Who will have ac­cess to e-pe­ti­tion data? “Only a small group of [White House] staff will have ac­cess to ad­min­is­trat­ive data We the People will be sub­ject to a pub­lic pri­vacy policy,” tweeted Phil­lips.

Who built the e-pe­ti­tions func­tion? Is it the the same code as the UK tool? “Sys­tem design and de­vel­op­ment of We the People was de­veloped in house,” tweeted Phil­lips.

How will iden­tity be handled? How will the White House au­then­tic­ate cit­izens to e-pe­ti­tion gov­ern­ment? “Light­weight - par­ti­cip­a­tion will re­quire an email veri­fic­a­tion step,” tweeted Phil­lips. “For now we are us­ing first party WH ac­counts that veri­fy an email ad­dress. Plan to in­cor­por­ate NST­IC rec’s in fu­ture ht­tp://1.usa.gov/p7n8HR.”

How will so­cial me­dia be in­teg­rated? “When you cre­ate a pe­ti­tion you get a unique link. How you share that is up to you. Will have @face­book and @twit­ter share [but­tons],” tweeted Phil­lips, “just like oth­er con­tent on wh.gov.”

Can cit­izens ask ques­tions us­ing We The People on whatever top­ic they wish or will these be pre­defined? The screen­shot shows the lat­ter cat­egor­iz­a­tion: tax­onomy, not folk­sonomy. Phil­lips con­firmed as much: “There will be a defined set of top­ic people can choose from but its a wide range, and there will also be ad hoc tags,” he tweeted.

Will there be an API so that civic de­velopers can visu­al­ize and ana­lyze them to see if there are du­plic­ates or emer­ging themes? “Not now; API’s for ana­lys­is and ex­tend­ing pe­ti­tion func­tion­al­ity on a long list of fea­tures we we are con­sid­er­ing for fu­ture,” tweeted Phil­lips. “With [fed­er­al CIO] Steve up­stairs now, think­ing through how that can best work is “¦ a pri­or­ity.”

Why build this when ser­vices like Pop­Vox, Vot­izen and Change ex­ist to cre­ate so­cial e-pe­ti­tions? “De­vel­op­ing We the People ourselves […] of­fers the flex­ib­il­ity to ad­apt to the pub­lic re­sponse to im­prove en­gage­ment,” tweeted Phil­lips. “It’s a false choice to say _either_ We the People _or_ oth­ers - there’s lots of col­lab­or­a­tion ahead, this space is still young.” There’s an­oth­er key de­tail: these e-pe­ti­tions would go to the ex­ec­ut­ive branch, where­as Vot­izen and Pop­Vox are tar­geted at Con­gress and con­stitu­ent com­mu­nic­a­tions.

We the People re­spond

The ini­tial re­sponse on­line has ranged from cel­eb­ra­tion, in­clud­ing a “high five from Pop­Vox,” to ex­treme skep­ti­cism. Open gov­ern­ment tech­no­lo­gist and cit­izen arch­iv­ist Carl Mal­amud took the long view: “Nice job on We The People,” he tweeted. “Tread­ing in the foot­steps of the Founders, pe­ti­tions have a long and hon­or­able his­tory in our re­pub­lic!”

Nick Judd re­por­ted on the White House go­ing E-to-the-People at tech­Pres­id­ent, point­ing out that House Re­pub­lic­ans have already been ex­per­i­ment­ing with sim­il­ar plat­forms in their em­brace of tech­no­logy for trans­par­ency, with ties to le­gis­lat­ive ac­tion. Judd cur­ated many more re­ac­tions to the news as well.

“What dif­fer­ence do they make?” tweeted Fu­tureGov founder Domin­ic Camp­bell. “None. Just a dis­trac­tion tech­nique to pa­ci­fy the masses. Need new polit­ics not gim­micks. Back­bench­ers are gen­er­ally as in­flu­en­tial over [gov­ern­ment] policy as my gran. And she’s dead. Pe­ti­tion / pre­cise tech tool is ir­rel­ev­ant, it’s all about polit­ic­al cul­ture. Pe­ti­tions are lame. All power is in the hands of govt. Not game chan­ging. More make u feel bet­ter/do­ing *something*.”

While the UK pe­ti­tions have come back, “You’d be hard pushed to find any­one in UK speak +vely of them. Waste of space… think they just re­in­force status quo and re­ward loudest/best or­gan­ised. Not demo­cracy. “

The cre­at­or of act.ly, Jim Gil­li­am, offered some of his own per­spect­ive and ques­tions. “I built a pe­ti­tion/pri­or­ity tool White House 2 back in 2008. I learned a lot, happy to share,” he tweeted to Phil­lips, link­ing to his post on White House 2.0. On this count, the White House was listen­ing: Phil­lips asked Gil­li­am to “dm him his email ad­dress.” Here’s a look back at “ima­gin­ing White House 2.0” from the 2009 Per­son­al Demo­cracy For­um:

“I figured out all the prob­lems, ex­cept for one: get­ting the White House to pay at­ten­tion. (or maybe it just took 3yrs),” tweeted Gil­li­am.

He high­lighted two is­sues, one for ad­voc­ates and one for White House tech­no­lo­gists: “How will the White House use all the email ad­dresses it col­lects with new pe­ti­tion tool? Ad­vocacy groups will have to de­cide wheth­er to send their people to white­house.gov at the ex­pense of their own list build­ing,” he tweeted. “White House will need some ser­i­ous anti-spam jujitsu to knock back the tools that scrape con­gres­sion­al forms.”

Former Sun­light Found­a­tion mem­ber Jake Brew­er dug in­to some of the struc­tur­al is­sues that ex­ist with this ap­proach. The “only reas­on “We the People” would [be] use­ful vs oth­er tools is if [the] White­House can con­vince all they are listen­ing and mean­ing­fully re­spond­ing,” he tweeted. “It strikes me though that “giv­ing people a voice” is not at all the prob­lem in gov[ern­ment]. Many ways to talk AT gov[ern­ment]. Few ways to do so use­fully.”

“We simply don’t need more ways to send pe­ti­tions or gath­er ideas. We need bet­ter ways to listen and op­er­a­tion­al­ize good ideas. What will be an agency’s in­cent­ive to take any ac­tion based on a pe­ti­tion? Will White House pres­sure? Pe­ti­tions to Con­gress (the­or­et­ic­ally) work be­cause Reps want to be re­spons­ive and re-elec­ted. Ex­ec not the same, so how to handle? Guess I’m hav­ing a hard time see­ing “We the People” as any­thing more than Gov 2.0 theat­er, and I’d like to be wrong. We simply don’t need more ways to send pe­ti­tions or gath­er ideas. We need bet­ter ways to listen and op­er­a­tion­al­ize good ideas.”

The ques­tion on the minds of many cit­izens, ad­voc­ates and me­dia, in oth­er words, is wheth­er these e-pe­ti­tions mat­ter, go­ing bey­ond a pub­lic re­la­tions ex­er­cise that ends with a “thank you let­ter” from White House staff. It’s a mat­ter of that goes straight to the heart of wheth­er e-pe­ti­tion ac­tions ever lead to res­ults.

“Open­Gov has the equi­val­ent of a “last mile” prob­lem: a cul­ture+di­git­al-in­fra­struc­ture gap at the work­group level,” tweeted Dan Lat­orre, lead­er of Di­git­al Place­mak­ing and cre­at­or of Fix­City.org.

For in­stance, if enough people sign e-pe­ti­tions on with­draw­ing from Afgh­anistan, sup­port­ing gay mar­riage, leg­al­iz­ing marijuana or op­pos­ing ICE take­downs of web­sites without ju­di­cial re­view, will the White House change its policy?

Hun­dreds of thou­sands of people protest­ing in the streets in 2003, after all, didn’t stop the United States from go­ing to war in Ir­aq. Would mil­lions of sig­na­tures of e-pe­ti­tions gave any bear­ing on fu­ture de­cisions? When e-pe­ti­tions go live later this month, the world will see.

Al­ex­an­der B. Howard is the Gov­ern­ment 2.0 Cor­res­pond­ent for “¨O’Re­illy Me­dia and a tech­no­logy writer fo­cused on open gov­ern­ment, in­nov­a­tion, and on­line civics.

What We're Following See More »
Rubio Says McCabe Should Have Been Allowed to Retire
5 hours ago
Trump Asking for Bill to “Break the WTO”
5 hours ago

"Trump is asking for a bill" that would effectively break the WTO. One of the core WTO principles — which has underpinned globalization and trade for 70 years — is an idea called 'most favored nation status.' Countries that belong to the WTO have all agreed to charge the same tariff rate for imports from all other WTO members." But Trump covets reciprocal tariffs "nation-by-nation, product-by-product." The GOP free-traders in Congress are unlikely to support such an effort.

Barry McCaffrey Calls Trump “Serious Threat to National Security”
1 days ago
Trump to Fire McMaster
2 days ago

"Trump is ready to oust Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster and find a new national security adviser before the North Korea meetings in May, multiple sources told CNN Thursday. The move may be delayed because there's no final decision on a replacement, sources say. The timing of an announcement is unclear -- one source said it could come as soon as Friday, though others say that is unlikely."

Mueller Subpoenas Trump Organization
3 days ago

"Robert S. Mueller III has subpoenaed the Trump Organization to turn over documents, including some related to Russia, according to two people briefed on the matter. The order is the first known time that the special counsel demanded documents directly related to President Trump’s businesses." The subpoena is proof that the investigation will likely drag on "for at least several more months," and also indicates Mueller may be "broadening his investigation to examine the role foreign money may have played in funding Mr. Trump’s political activities."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.