Subscribe via RSS Feed

The Problem With Online Petitions

[ 8 ] March 29, 2010 |

I recently suggested LGM readers support a Department of Justice Rule-making process on prison reform. I probably should have added that it’s not enough – not nearly enough - to simply log into the Change.org site and click “send” on the form letter they offer.

In fact, if you did that already, you pretty much wasted your time. That’s because DoJ doesn’t care how many individual constituents support or oppose prison reform per se. They couldn’t care less, in fact. All they care about is how to create the best possible set of rules, so what they want most are informed, carefully thought out, unique comments.

Congress cares about numbers, of course. Congress’s job is to pass laws, and because we elect our congressional leaders they care a great deal about the popularity of those laws.

Federal agencies are pretty much the reverse. They are tasked with implementing laws, and they are staffed by civil servants. Their job is not to get re-elected, it is to figure out how to produce collective goods.

Citizen input in federal rule-makings is not about the popularity of a particular rule. Rather, it’s about more heads being better than few – it’s about tapping the experiential, procedural, scientific and everyday expertise of the American people. The federal rule-making process is one of the truly deliberative mechanisms in our country. What the public comment process is supposed to produce is useful substantive citizen input on what the rule should look like.

What does this have to do with online petitions?

Well, because federal agencies don’t care about quantity of comments, only quality, a form letter written by Change.org and submitted by you and 500,000 others is worth exactly one comment no matter how many times it’s sent – precisely the opposite of Congress.

You can probably see the grand irony here. The genius of websites like Change.org is that they make sending a letter to your government easy, thereby potentially increasing the level of citizen participation. But because clicking a form letter is so easy, citizens have powerful disincentives to write substantive comments where such form letters are available, even in cases – federal rule-makings – where such a comment would actually be read and considered valuable. For example, researchers studying the 2004 EPA mercruy rule-making found that the vast majority of comments submitted to the EPA through were are either identical form letters or contained extremely minor modifications.

Not only is this a waste of citizen time and effort, but this influx of meaningless form letters actually makes it harder for federal civil servants to identify the few useful comments sent in by citizens to their government that could actually aid their decision-making about a particular rule.

So, here’s the moral of the story: Anytime you go to signal your opinion on an online petition, first figure out if it’s going to Congress or to a federal agency. If it’s Congress, sheer numbers count and substance is discounted – so save yourself time and simply click yes or no. But if it’s a federal agency – EPA, DoJ, DoT, FCC - be sure to alter the letter as much as possible, and write an informed, substantive comment. For example, if you support prison reform, write about what prison reform rules should look like and why, or ways in which DoJ can actually improve on the NPREC recommendations, and encourage others to do the same.

The same is true for many, many other issues about which progressives care deeply. Biomass for Fuel. Polar Bears. Net neutrality.

Sure, use the above websites to formulate your opinion. Use their online form to submit it. But delete the form letter and put it in your own words. (And not just any words. No emotional rants. No insults in all caps. No accusations of immoral behavior. No threats. It’s not that public officials care about these things; it’s that they couldn’t care less and letters like that just make it harder for them to find the useful, substantive comments that they need to make the best rules.)

Citizens unwilling or unable to take the time to write their own substantive letters can far better serve our democracy if they engage the Congressional process where it’s the absolute numbers of voters taking a certain position that matters, rather than gumming up the rule-making process with duplicative comments. And organizations aiming to increase citizen input to government should be thinking harder about to improve the quality of that participation, not just the quantity.

[cross-posted at Duck of Minerva]

Share with Sociable

Comments (8)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Adrian says:

    Great post, Charli! I’d add one thing, combining my role as LGM reader and ActBlue flack:

    I agree with your analysis, but I’d say that elected officials care more about # of $ than they do about # of letters. Put another way, a grassroots campaign that sends $100,000 to a Rep/Sen is much more likely to influence his/her future behavior than one that sends 100,000 form letters.

    And, while I don’t want to shill too hard for my organization (this isn’t the place), we do make exactly that sort of political participation possible.

  2. DocAmazing says:

    All they care about is how to create the best possible set of rules,

    I would say that the evidence suggests otherwise.

  3. Jonquil says:

    Why sign a petition when you can comment directly to the DOJ at http://www.regulations.gov?

    Your posting might be more useful with links. Here are the instructions I gave my friends on how to comment:

    To comment, go to this list, click the first entry (“National Standards To ….”), and click “Submit Comment” at the top of the page, below “Document Details”.

    If the link doesn’t work for you, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for “OAG-131″

  4. Buddy Toledo says:

    Great post. We need more and better education about rulemaking.

  5. JJ says:

    I agree that what these online petitions may do is have the reverse affect of what they are looking for.

    People who were more involved in the past may think that the more “efficient” petitions get the job done just the same, so we actually reduce the number of effective change participants because they are too busy filling out name, address, e-mail, and “comment here” sections. Maybe the “comment here” sections get read, but somehow I highly doubt it because they are lumped together with thousands of others who simply filled out the boiler plate with no content or ideas of their own. I think sites like Chang.org have a great mission, but after filling out my trillionth petition a while back, I realized how I was basically wasting my time anymore.

  6. [...] But it’s actually really important that you write your own comment. You can sign your name to the petition, but a far better and more effective use of your time would be to use the talking points found in the petition text to write in your own words why the standards are a great improvement on the status quo, why they should be adopted, and why it is so important to end prison rape. [...]

  7. [...] – similar to the practice of clicking on a form letter to a Congressperson rather than writing an original substantive remark about a political issue. However, on the Reddit thread, commenters were not only more likely to [...]

  8. [...] – similar to the practice of clicking on a form letter to a Congressperson rather than writing an original substantive remark about a political issue. However, on the Reddit thread, commenters were not only more likely to [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.