Comments on: Parliamentary online petitions http://davepress.net/2010/12/30/parliamentary-online-petitions/ Open government and everything else Mon, 05 Sep 2011 08:54:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Richard http://davepress.net/2010/12/30/parliamentary-online-petitions/comment-page-1/#comment-9877 Richard Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:01:41 +0000 http://davepress.net/?p=17654#comment-9877 I like the 'doing the wrong things righter' description, that seems like a good way of putting it. ePetitions are a pretty limited form of participation, and it is difficult to see much by way of actual change coming out of the parliamentary mechanisms outlined in the Guardian article. The paradox of focusing on big petitions is, I guess, that you'd like to think that if an issue can generate 100,000 signatures hopefully Parliament should already be aware of it without the need for the petition in the first place! Still, I guess we know that isn't always the case. But maybe the possibilities for the system lie in shifting it along the scale from participation to engagement. I was <a href="http://www.edemocracyblog.com/edemocracy-blog/epetitions-and-the-big-society/" rel="nofollow">pondering on my blog last night</a> what that might mean. Imagine a petition signed by say 10,000 people about school sports. Not big enough to merit a Commons debate and potentially at risk of sinking without trace. But what if the petitions site allowed signatories to opt into a forum where they could discuss the campaign and perhaps get emails about the latest posts. As they all share an interest in supporting school sports then those who already do so could provide others with information about how to get involved themselves. When you have users coming to your site with the express purpose of telling you what they are interested in, and helpfully grouping themselves, it would be a shame not to make a bit more use of all that self-selection, and maybe do a bit of Big Society promotion into the bargain. I agree that might be a bit less likely with the typical Daily Mail-inspired headline though! I like the ‘doing the wrong things righter’ description, that seems like a good way of putting it. ePetitions are a pretty limited form of participation, and it is difficult to see much by way of actual change coming out of the parliamentary mechanisms outlined in the Guardian article.

The paradox of focusing on big petitions is, I guess, that you’d like to think that if an issue can generate 100,000 signatures hopefully Parliament should already be aware of it without the need for the petition in the first place! Still, I guess we know that isn’t always the case.

But maybe the possibilities for the system lie in shifting it along the scale from participation to engagement. I was pondering on my blog last night what that might mean.

Imagine a petition signed by say 10,000 people about school sports. Not big enough to merit a Commons debate and potentially at risk of sinking without trace. But what if the petitions site allowed signatories to opt into a forum where they could discuss the campaign and perhaps get emails about the latest posts. As they all share an interest in supporting school sports then those who already do so could provide others with information about how to get involved themselves.

When you have users coming to your site with the express purpose of telling you what they are interested in, and helpfully grouping themselves, it would be a shame not to make a bit more use of all that self-selection, and maybe do a bit of Big Society promotion into the bargain.

I agree that might be a bit less likely with the typical Daily Mail-inspired headline though!

]]>