By Jonathan Friedman
Associate Editor

July 3, 2014 --. Seemingly overnight, the online petition, or e-petition, has become a popular method in Santa Monica, and across the nation, to influence those in power. But there is disagreement about the effectiveness of these campaigns.

Some of the recent e-petitions focused on Santa Monica issues have called for stopping development projects, reinstating a suspended teacher, lowering parking ticket charges and allowing a musician to perform at Santa Monica College’s campus quad.

An e-petition can even inspire a rival petition.

Shortly after activist Marcy Winograd launched an e-petition to ban pony rides and petting zoos in Santa Monica, a person who brings these features to the city started an e-petition titled “Please Help Stop Marcy Winograd's Effort to Ban Pony Rides & Petting Farms in Santa Monica.”

As of July 2, the scorecard on the rival petitions shows Winograd with 965 signatures and the anti-Winograd movement collecting 750 names. (“Santa Monica Residents Cry Foul on Farmers Market Pony Rides,” July 1, 2014)

The word “signatures” should probably be in quotation marks, since e-petitions do not feature the traditional ink and paper. The many websites that host the e-petitions range in how much information they require in addition to the person’s name, and there is no bullet-proof method to ensure it is the actual person listing the name or if the name is attached to a real person at all.

Some of those who criticize the e-petition say it is an example of 21st century “slacktivism” or “clicktivism” in which people give minimal effort to back issues. These terms are also used to describe Twitter hashtagging and Facebook posting on controversial subjects.

The editorial board at Stanford University’s The Stanford Daily wrote in 2012 that e-petitions can be counter-productive.

“Citizens who may have otherwise engaged in effective advocacy, such as writing their representatives or protesting, might instead feel content signing online petitions without realizing that each signature has a minimal effect on the policy-making process,” the board wrote.

The opinion piece continued, “When government steps in to make difficult decisions … the ease and swiftness with which online petitions can garner the appearance of massive public opposition to a measure may kill legislation aimed at the long-term, best interests of constituents.”

Several e-petition supporters were outraged several years ago when the website Snopes.com, which is trusted by many people to debunk or prove rumors and urban legends, called the method a “waste of your time” and stated it does not inspire people in power to take action, nor is it a reliable method to determine public opinion.

Among those who took issue with the entry (which has since been removed from the Snopes site), was Randy Paynter, founder of the e-petition site Care2. He wrote in a 2010 blog that online petitions have a large impact and inspire people to get involved in activism.

“These days it's hard to imagine significant change happening that’s not greatly influenced by so-called armchair ‘slacktivists,’” Paynter wrote. “Web 2.0 activism has transformed the power structure, putting power in the hands of the people and forcing authorities to be accountable like never before.”

He continued, “The frustrations with G.W. Bush and the subsequent enthusiasm, fundraising and election of Obama … are well-documented examples fueled by online petitions and other online activism.”

While that the e-petition being behind the election of President Obama is a matter of debate, his administration has embraced this method of activism. The online petition system “We the People” was added to the White House’s website in 2011.

“We the People” allows users to start e-petitions and sign them. Those that reach a certain threshold of signatures will get a response from the administration. The threshold began at 5,000 signatures, and has since been increased several times to the current 100,000.

Petitions on issues such as gay marriage, immigration and gun control have led to the White House giving in-depth responses. Meanwhile, a call to deport troubled musician Justin Bieber to Canada, which received nearly 274,000 signatures, did not receive the response petitioners had likely hoped for.

“Sorry to disappoint, but we won’t be commenting on this one,” White House staff wrote in response.

The staff continued with an explanation of the administration’s view on immigration, while keeping Bieber in the topic.

“Independent economists say immigration reform will grow our economy and shrink our deficits by almost $1 trillion in the next 20 years,” the response states. “For those of you counting at home, that’s 12.5 billion concert tickets -- or 100 billion copies of Mr. Bieber’s debut album.”