Post-Petitions
At the mySociety pub meeting in Manchester this weekend, there was a coversation about engagement in the world of petitions.
Simple academic theory suggests that there will only be at most 1% of the population who are engaged on any issue. Petitions has shown that this is no longer necessarily true - it is possible to get more than that involved. Climate change similar may have such a reach, where there are hard decisions and tradeoffs to be made.
But in a world where that engagement is possible, with the levels, types and styles of technologies and discourse available is as it is now. Allowing a "full and free" exchange of views will generally lead to the extremes shouting at each other, and those who occupy positions in the middle generally becoming demotivated by the extremes (whether on their side or the other).
Petitions are a way of simply saying "I agree with X". There's little/no room for subtly, and it's a relatively blunt instrument. Although people are finding ways to comment on petitions even though it's something not offered on the core site.
Large scale government reviews often present a range of options to solve whatever issue was being looked into. Many large issues involve tradeoffs and have differing costs and benefits, there is, currently, no mechanism for wider engagement on which of those is deemed better by the general public. While "The Sun" may think it speaks for their audience, there is likely to be a difference there.
What if petitions was extended, so rather than agreeing with a statement, you could select from a list. So in terms of energy review, you could sign in favour of 'more nuclear', 'some nuclear, more renewables', 'no nuclear, mostly renewables', 'less coal, more renewables'. Requiring the same information from people as to sign a petition, but instead of signing a single statement, you can select however many of those you agree with (including none if you don't like any of them but want your voice heard, or all of them if you think we should do something but don't mind which).
These reviews happen anyway, and often produce a number of possible solutions for consideration - and giving everyone the chance to state their view is one way of doing engagement, based on existing, and highly successful, processes.
Simple academic theory suggests that there will only be at most 1% of the population who are engaged on any issue. Petitions has shown that this is no longer necessarily true - it is possible to get more than that involved. Climate change similar may have such a reach, where there are hard decisions and tradeoffs to be made.
But in a world where that engagement is possible, with the levels, types and styles of technologies and discourse available is as it is now. Allowing a "full and free" exchange of views will generally lead to the extremes shouting at each other, and those who occupy positions in the middle generally becoming demotivated by the extremes (whether on their side or the other).
Petitions are a way of simply saying "I agree with X". There's little/no room for subtly, and it's a relatively blunt instrument. Although people are finding ways to comment on petitions even though it's something not offered on the core site.
Large scale government reviews often present a range of options to solve whatever issue was being looked into. Many large issues involve tradeoffs and have differing costs and benefits, there is, currently, no mechanism for wider engagement on which of those is deemed better by the general public. While "The Sun" may think it speaks for their audience, there is likely to be a difference there.
What if petitions was extended, so rather than agreeing with a statement, you could select from a list. So in terms of energy review, you could sign in favour of 'more nuclear', 'some nuclear, more renewables', 'no nuclear, mostly renewables', 'less coal, more renewables'. Requiring the same information from people as to sign a petition, but instead of signing a single statement, you can select however many of those you agree with (including none if you don't like any of them but want your voice heard, or all of them if you think we should do something but don't mind which).
These reviews happen anyway, and often produce a number of possible solutions for consideration - and giving everyone the chance to state their view is one way of doing engagement, based on existing, and highly successful, processes.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home