Shifting PercePtionS: We the PeoPleand the strategy behind the white house petitions platform

Austin Wright-Pettib one

university of washington, 2016 21.March.2013

191,000 petitions

10 million signatures

807 signatures per hour

Whitehouse.gov/WethePeoPle

your voice in our government

2

table of contentS

Introduction: A new tool for social engagementEarly interpretations: Media react to We the PeopleReassessment: Determining the purpose of We the PeoplePetitions old and new: Direct democracy over timeUnderstanding the data: Individuals and We the PeopleWe the People: A new form of political communicationThe first year: Changing media opinionsNew challenges: A lack of academic researchConclusion: A vast expanse awaitsWorks cited

46

1113162123242931

3

This paper was written for my personal academic use only. The positions presented are my own; they are not made on behalf of the Office of Digital Strategy and do not represent the views of the Administration

4

When the White House launched We the People in late 2011, the Office of Digital

Strategy pitched the platform as a new way to achieve the Obama Administration’s

goal of opening the doors of the White House to the general public. As an online

petitions platform, We the People promised to create a direct line of communication

and establish an unprecedented degree of connectedness between the White House

and its constituencies. Individuals would be able to create petitions, send them to their

friends, post them on their social networks, advocate for their cause, and, if the petitions

accumulated enough signatures, receive an official White House response. It was a new

way to connect and staffers suspected it would prove popular. After all, online political

participation had increased tremendously over the course of the Obama Administration’s

previous three years, their formidable social networks being among the most visible online.

We the People, continuing in this regard, was meant to encourage further participation,

provoking interest in the governing process by asking petitioners to submit ideas, which

“might not otherwise be the subject of conversation in Washington” (Cornish 2013). In all

this, what the staffers within the Office of Digital Strategy did not know – what they could

not know – was the incredible success their new platform would see in its first year and

a half.

Neither, it should be noted, did the general public. Within the first two months,

well over 12,000 petitions had been created with 77 surpassing the 5,000-signature

threshold the White House had designated as sufficient to merit an official response

(Phillips 2011). The novelty of the platform drew press and the general public, but many

skeptics suspected the excitement would wear off in time. That, at least, was the opinion

of J.H. Snider, president of iSolon.org and a Huffington Post guest columnist. Snider,

whose opinion was shared by a number of other journalists, penned a column in October

of 2011 predicting that We the People would “only have a short life … one that probably

introduction: a new tool for Social engagement

5

won’t extend past the President’s first term in office” (Snider 2011). The Wall Street

Journal, in a similar vein, took to its front page to question the legitimacy of the petitions

platform, noting the petitions focused not on those things the White House frequently

discussed, but on more fringe issues (Meckler 2011). “Please tell us the truth about E.T.”

journalist Laura Meckler titled her front page piece, referring to a petition seeking the

Administration’s acknowledgement of government contact with extraterrestrials (Meckler

2011). No matter that many of the petitions focused on things outside the narrow scope

Meckler speciously portrayed as encompassing in her article; it was the absurd that drew

headlines and fanned the skeptics’ flames.

Other journalists, however, in contrast to Meckler and Snider, seemed willing to

take a more tempered approach in their critique. Alexander Howard, of the National

Journal, announced the petitions platform to Journal readers in an early September 2011

commentary, saying, “[the White House has] given the nation a powerful new way to

use the Internet as a platform for collective action’ (Howard 2011). Powerful, because

the White House was showing a continuing commitment towards innovation and finding

novel ways to encourage engagement. Powerful, because the White House was actively

developing tools to increase participation. Powerful, because the White House had found

a way to modernize the political process through this guaranteed direct access channel.

Yet at the same time, potentially futile, for “there are still many questions that remain”

(Howard 2011). The White House was set to collect the email addresses of anyone

signing a petition, Howard reported: how would it handle its new collection? Similarly, the

announcement had promised an official White House response, but what would this look

like? Would they change policy on the basis of petitions? The answers were uncertain

and ambiguity surrounded the release.

6

early interPretationS: media react to we the PeoPleWhere the majority of media fell on this spectrum at first glance seems to be almost

entirely dependent on a researcher’s vantage point and their own predispositions.

Restricting the sampling size to eight high-traffic sources, however, reflects an attempt to

yield a broad picture and an encompassing view that gives a better sense of the overall

media perception.

The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post represent three

of the nation’s largest and most well-respected print publications. The Wall Street Journal

is the largest subscription publication in the United States (2.29 million subscriptions),

while the New York Times places third with 1.66 million subscribers (BulletinNews). The

Washington Post, with 489 thousand, falls in sixth (BulletinNews). All were prominent in

Washington and all have a nationwide appeal. Although We the People has not frequently

made its way into the printed sections of these papers, it has been repeatedly featured

on their respective sites, which, according to Quantcast.com (a site which measures

and quantifies online traffic) adds a combined reach of 33.9 million additional viewers/

mo. Taken as an aggregate number, only 28 locations are visited by more individuals on

a monthly basis (Quantcast)1.

Unfortunately the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times file relatively few stories

regarding We the People. Between 1 September and 31 October, 2011, the two months

following the announcement of We the People, the New York Times filed three stories

(unusually high, compared with later time periods), and the Wall Street Journal filed two,

both covering a petition to legalize marijuana. In contrast to this, the Washington Post

alone filed five stories. Between these 10 articles, the tenor ranged from the already

expressed skepticism of the Wall Street Journal to the more ambivalent position of the

New York Times, with the Washington Post falling somewhere in between.

1This number does not take into account the number of visitors who frequent multiple sites. That number – unique IP addresses, cross-referenced between sites to eliminate redundancies – is presumably much lower, although an exact number is not available.

7

It is, however, what they did not say – or, rather, what they did not publish – that is

of the most value. All three covered the marijuana petition. Additionally, the New York

Times mentioned a petition to dissolve the electoral college (Shear 2011) and the Wall

Street Journal described the aforementioned petition on extraterrestrials (Meckler 2011).

All three can be considered fringe issues in the sense that none of these issues have

seen recent developments within the federal government (shifts in stances or policy

announcements) and all spark significant controversy within their respective crowds.

That these publications chose to discuss these issues, rather than issues not immediately

linked to controversy, such as a petition to appoint the Chief of the National Guard to

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, seems to reflect the novelty of the platform. It should not be

surprising, however, that these papers chose to publish stories on these topics: it is

controversial and fringe issues that draw coverage seemingly because of their novelty

and the conflicting sides they animate.

This is valuable, in and of itself, and it allows researchers one way to segregate

prominent petitions from insignificant ones. Those submissions that receive such

mainstream coverage can be in many ways considered a success for they bring attention

to the engagement tools of the White House, subtly encouraging more people to take

part in the political process. They can also be considered a reflection of the media not

taking too seriously the White House petitions platform and, furthermore, they can be

considered limited because they cover only a narrow band of petitions. Nonetheless,

the White House recognizes the value of this reporting, and while it is overly generous

to say the New York Times’ reporting on a petition vindicates the platform in the eyes of

Administration officials, it is accurate to say that notes are made when these sites report

on We the People.

Among print publications, these three are the most notable, certainly, but as a single

organization National Public Radio reaches a larger audience. Twenty six million unique

8

listeners tune in to broadcasts every month, with 3.5 million additional viewers visiting

NPR.org (NPR.org). The station’s reporting emphasizes detail over topical treatment and

NPR holds particular sway among the highly educated: a viewer of NPR.org, according

to Quantcast, is almost twice as likely to have a graduate degree than the viewer of a

typical webpage. This makes NPR a valuable indicator to the White House of the news

received by the highly educated.

What, then, was NPR saying in the early months of We the People, September and

October of 2011? Notably, nothing. NPR filed their first story November 8, nearly two

months after the petitions site launched (Memmott 2011). What this indicates exactly

is a matter of some supposition. Most likely, We the People was simply not prominent

enough up until the time it released its first responses to merit coverage. Nevertheless,

what Memmott says in his article is revealing. In an off-hand remark Memmott notes,

“by the way, after initially saying it would respond to petitions with 5,000 or more online

signatures, the White House has raised the bar” (Memmott 2011). His seeming implication:

the White House does not want to respond to these types of petitions in the future.

That idea is somewhat vindicated when examining later coverage by NPR. Earlier

this year, the organization published two articles with negative sentiments, one focusing

on the new threshold and how “eliciting an official response to your petition just got

tougher” (Farrington 2013); another, discussing ways in which the site might be made

“better” (Cornish 2013). Last year, too, their coverage was ambivalent at best, with a 31

December article reporting on a “petition to end all petitions” (Demby 2012). Although not

outspokenly critical, that Demby and NPR chose to report and publish a story on such

a petition reflects a choice on the part of the news organization to give prominence to

those things critical of the Administration’s platform, rather than balancing their coverage

to include pieces on policy announcements and increased engagement by way of We

the People.

9

The Atlantic, however, has taken a more positive stance. Publishing the White House’s

announcement the day it was released, the Atlantic has since praised the platform

repeatedly. In the Monthly’s first story, reporter Chris Good said “the idea fits in with

Obama’s recent push for citizen activism” (Good 2011). Later articles by Nancy Scola and

Megan Garber, among others, have reinforced this praise of We the People, asserting the

petitions platform is “the future of Democracy” (Garber 2013). Well-established among

the highly educated, Quantcast.com reports site-goers as being 218% more likely to

have a graduate degree as compared to the typical web-user (Quantcast.com).

It should be noted at this point many of the ideas in this paper have been influenced

or inspired by the Atlantic’s reporting, particularly Scola’s piece, More than Gimmicks:

How Obama’s Tech Tools Are Shifting the Debate and Garber’s aforementioned piece,

The White House Petition’s Site Is a Joke (And Also the Future of Democracy). Scola’s

analysis of the site is acute, breaking down ways in which the White House is “nudging

conversations” through technology (Scola 2013). Garber, too, lays a detailed analysis

expounding on the reasons behind the White House’s decision to embrace the absurdity

of answering a petition to construct a Death Star (Garber 2013).

Similarly, TIME Magazine’s recent reporting on We the People has been influential.

Michael Scherer’s 2013 centerspread breaks down the reasons the White House

launched the platform, explaining in simple terms the strategic thinking which underlies

the site to TIME’s more mature audience (Scherer 2013). Not all reporting has been

positive, however, and it is interesting to contrast TIME’s earlier reporting with its more

recent. In September 2011, TIME published a column by guest writer Jerry Brito, focusing

on the Administration’s past handling of controversial issues, alluding to their lack of

openness and claiming it would be “interesting” to see how they handled politically

sensitive topics brought up in petitions (Brito 2011). Fast-forward a year and a half to

Scherer’s centerspread piece and the magazine is lauding the White House’s platform

10

as “a new public square” (Scherer 2013). What this seems to show is an evolution of

thinking on the part of TIME’s reporters. Replacing criticism with measured praise, the

magazine emphasizes the ways in which the site works to engage more people in the

political process. Ultimately, however, the magazine leaves it to the reader to decide the

full value of the petitions platform.

In contrast to TIME, Mashable.com took no time reaching its conclusion. Two days

after the site launched, Zachary Sniderman called We the People “conceptually a step

in the right direction” (Sniderman 2011). Although Mashable is not well-known outside

the tech, digital, and social media community it reports on, it is considered one of the

best sources available within that community. Quantcast measures 3.5 million visitors/

mo., placing it 403rd in its list of most heavily trafficked sites in the United States. In the

two months after We the People launched Mashable posted five articles on the topic,

more than any other site heretofore mentioned. The first was a simple announcement

with a link to the White House video describing the new platform, the second announced

a petition to stop SOPA and PIPA, the third refrained the second, the fourth discussed

submitted petitions and the fifth announced the release of one the first White House

petition responses. In each, the tone was distinctly positive, although at times slightly

sarcastic (Sniderman 2011). The second went so far as to fully adopt the White House’s

language, claiming the Administration would give successful petitions “serious thought,”

presenting the issues to “top policy makers” (Sniderman 2011).

This is great news for the White House. Mashable’s audience is mostly comprised of

youth under 18, meaning these people, who are more likely to go on and read tech over

policy news, are receiving a distinctly positive message regarding the Administration

(Quantcast).

Of all these sources, however, it is the Huffington Post which produces the most content

and has the largest readership. With 58.8 million U.S. visitors/mo., the Huffington Post

11

and its subsidiary sites are ranked 13th in Quantcast’s list of most heavily trafficked sites

(Quantcast). Their vast scope and heavy traffic makes them ideal for gauging the media’s

overall perception of issues, although their long list of guest columnists makes it more

challenging to understand the site’s general opinion. J.H. Snider, the aforementioned

guest columnist was – and remains – skeptical of the White House petitions platform,

but Lee Speigel, another guest columnist writing in late 2011, seems to find a certain

humor in the whole affair. “Start your intergalactic engines …” because the Administration

is going to respond to a petition on extraterrestrials, Speigel writes (2011). Covering

the absurd petition, Speigel neither condones nor condemns We the People, just as

the Huffington Post neither embraces nor criticizes the platform outright. By covering

the petition on extraterrestrials, however, rather than a less controversial one to, say,

stop animal homelessness, Spiegel seems to associate himself more closely with those

uncertain of the platform’s value.

In the first few months – and to an extent, extending to the present – media oscillated

between Speigel’s humorous take on We the People and Snider’s critical approach.

Some took the route of Alexander Howard and voiced cautious optimism. For a majority,

however, an air of veiled skepticism was the welcome granted to the White House’s most

recent attempt at social innovation.

reaSSeSSment: determining the PurPoSe of we the PeoPleYet even within the audience of skeptics and cautious optimists, there were early signs

of disagreement, signs that some initial critics may have been unduly harsh. In an article

released some weeks after We the People launched, Snider again took to the Huffington

Post, this time to counter Meckler’s Wall Street Journal story: “that’s exactly the point,”

Snider writes in response to Meckler pointing out that petitions focused on issues

unrelated to those covered daily by the White House (Snider 2011). While the skeptics

serve a valuable purpose, questioning the need for and the worthiness of innovation,

12

Meckler in her article seemed to be conflating the value of poling with that of petitioning.

Yes, the petitions focused on underreported issues ad dealt with items not typically on

the President’s agenda. That’s because they were petitions, and while polling is valuable

for bringing attention to the public’s opinion on current issues, petitions are valuable

for injecting new ideas into the debate and bringing attention to issues not necessarily

dominating the daily news cycle.

As Macon Phillips, White House Director of Digital Strategy, said in a promotional

video, “Americans have always used petitions to organize around issues they care about

… [and] we’ve come up with a better way to engage this activity online” (Phillips 2011).

From Phillips’ description, the purpose of We the People was to broaden the debate and

allow the government to engage with people on their own terms - to hear issues about

which the public cared, and empower their voices by granting individuals a seat at the

table alongside established Washington powers. The purpose was not simply to refrain

opposition to the Affordable Care Act or declare support for the President’s jobs plan.

Other channels existed for moving these ideas along.

We the People was meant to encourage new ideas and, as the initial petitions began

to cross the threshold, new focuses emerged. It was a sign that the debt debate, all-

consuming though it was in Washington, was not all-encompassing in the minds of the

country’s citizens. Several petitions on issues unrelated to fiscal policy quickly crossed

the threshold to merit a response. When one of the first ones gathered enough signatures

to ask that the President appoint the Chief of the National Guard to the Joint Chiefs of

Staff, President Obama announced the signing of a National Defense Authorization Act

accomplishing that very thing December 2011 (We the People 2011). Hailed as “the most

significant development” since the National Guard’s establishment by Guard historians,

the passing of the act is reflective of the platform’s early success (Staff 2012). Other

early petitions to receive responses included one requesting the Administration “crack

13

down on puppy mills,” another asking the President “protect children from dangerous

air pollution,” and a third attempting to ban horse slaughter. In their responses, officials

respectively announced a policy change, where the White House would improve the

oversight of commercial breeders; explained the Administration’s policy towards air

pollution; and looked at the ways in which the FDA was (and is) working to prevent the

abuse of horses. None of these were issues the Administration consistently talked about,

and none were ones frequently mentioned in the mainstream press. Yet in a show of

significant support they succeeded in gathering enough signatures to cross the requisite

threshold.

For what it’s worth, these platforms are not new in concept. They have been a bedrock

of American political participation since the country’s founding, serving the important role of

bringing to light the understated concerns of the general public. So important were petitions

historically, they were guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution and described

in the Declaration of Independence: “our repeated petitions have been answered only by

repeated injury,” Thomas Jefferson writes as justification for the colonists’ eponymous

demand (Jefferson 1776). They served an important role throughout the 18th and into the first

part of the 19th century, diminishing in influence only after Congress banned the discussion

of petitions as part of the 1830s Gag Rule (Visit the Capitol). Unfortunately for proponents,

that act also worked to diminish the influence of petitions in U.S. politics and, ever since, they

have struggled to regain prominence.

That hasn’t stopped people from organizing and filing petitions, however. Petitioners

can still be seen on the streets of any major city, soliciting signatures for their various

causes. And with the advent of the Internet, petitions have found new life online as a low-

risk form of political participation. ePetitions, as they are known, allow people to easily

involve themselves in issues they care about and participate in a process geared towards

affecting change in their community.

PetitionS old and new: direct democracy over time

14

Early ePetitions were little more than emails sent around, asking recipients to add their

name to the bottom and forward the message on to their friends. Intended to create

awareness around an issue and foster a desire for change, the email petition, as Randy

Paynter, founder and CEO of the online petition site Care2.com points out, was hardly

an effective replacement for its pen and paper cousin (Paynter 2011). “They spread like

wildfire but then disappeared into cyberspace with little to no resulting benefit” (Paynter

2011). The problem, in part, was that these petitions lacked punch. Without a central

organizer able to tabulate signatures and drive the campaign, they were little more than

strongly worded letters signed by scores of individuals. For the target recipient, they

created no inconvenience, no impetus for change, and no prolonged campaign; they

were passive attempts, a once-off, easily ignored.

This form of petitioning still

exists and it exemplifies both

the degree to which people

misuse and misunderstand

the power of online petitions.

Take for example the perennially cycling email petition explaining the Buffett Rule. In its

body the petition asks the reader to “forward this email to a minimum of twenty people,”

noting if everybody does this eventually the petition will reach the entire country. In no

way, however, is this an effective form of online organizing. Even supposing everyone

were to follow the advice of the creator, there is no way for him or her to measure the

email’s success, no way for him or her to know if everyone forwarded the email.

The end goal of this petition is to build awareness. Ironically, it does so in possibly the least

aware method available. It is simply outdated and without a means to track data, the petition

fails in its goal. Furthermore, even if it did succeed in building awareness – which, again, the

creator has no way of knowing – building awareness is only one part of creating change. It is

An email petition circulated in late 2012, detailing Warren Buffet’s plan to increase taxes on the wealthiest of Americans. [Source: email sent to a.wrightp@gmail.com 4-Dec-2012]

15

the easiest and the most passive. Harder is creating an impetus for action on the basis of that

increased awareness. For that to happen there must be follow-up, a central organizational

structure, and an outlet for the petition. In this example, the supposed outlet is Congress, but

without a means to track the data and follow up with sustained activity, either online or offline,

it remains an idealistic proposition. Nothing more.

Ben Rattray recognized this fundamental flaw of the grassroots email petition when he

founded Change.org in 2007. Rattray built a platform to generate and deliver an email to

the target of a petition each time said petition was signed by a unique user (Change.org).

The effect he intended was the continual bombardment of a target recipient, a digital

siege against which the individual, corporation, or government could only acquiesce.

“Governments, companies, and individuals value their reputations,” Change.org’s

website advises (Change.org). Sustained public pressure of a great enough magnitude

will lead to change; that is the thinking behind Change.org.

It may sound far-fetched – online petitions have been the source of intense criticism

for seeming too easy – but the model works. Change.org was able to get the Bank of

America to rescind its policy of $5 credit charges in 2011 and Avaaz.org, the largest

online petition site with a specifically global focus, was able to pressure the Ugandan

Parliament in 2010 and 2011 to drop its “Kill the Gays” bill. On dozens of occasions

these websites have mobilized individuals and communities to affect political change,

using online pressure to affect offline action.

This has amounted to significant political power, which is only now beginning to be more

fully understood. In a way, We the People has built off this idea by encouraging would-

be petitioners to interact directly with the Obama Administration. By understanding and

accepting the power of the online movement, the Obama Administration has capitalized

on this nascent form of political activism, in effect shaping it into a new form of mainstream

political organizing.

16

But what does this movement look like, and how does it behave? In many ways,

as would be expected. People on WhiteHouse.gov tend to flit between pages, not

staying anywhere for more than a few minutes, according to statistics available on

Google Analytics. Beyond the White House website, they tend to cluster in well-defined

spaces corresponding to their communities’ interests: technology and social media for

younger generations, news and politics for older generations. According to data pulled

from Google Analytics and Alexa.com, demographic statistics, such as income, gender,

ethnicity, age, and political persuasion all influence which sites someone will visit, and

how long they will stay.

This is not groundbreaking, but it is beneficial for individual bloggers, company websites,

and government entities looking to quantify their audiences. Sites, such as Quantcast.

com, Google Analytics, and Alexa.com, among others, allow a user to break out visitors

into individual categories, assessing demographic traits to better tailor their message to

an intended audience. These analytics also let the White House see, for example, that

they will have a more difficult time using WhiteHouse.gov to speak to those earning a

lower wage, suggesting they should enlist other sites to help reach that audience.

This provides excellent information, all of which can then be used to tailor messages and

engage more people in the democratic process. Unfortunately little of this is applicable or

available to We the People. In marked contrast to Facebook, Twitter, and WhiteHouse.

gov, all of which have troves of analytics data readily available, We the People is relatively

strapped for information. As of yet, there are no systems available to fully analyze

demographic statistics, meaning the White House has little exact knowledge of who is

traversing this part of their site. Hopefully, with soon-to-be-released technology the Office

of Digital Strategy will be able to begin assessing this data, but for now researchers must

rely on traffic data from Google Analytics to discern possible trends.

underStanding the data: individualS and we the PeoPle

17

Looking at data from successful petitions, it is clear trends are present. Graph 1 shows

the daily pageviews for eight successful petitions as a percentage of the total number of

pageviews. Breaking the data out in this way allows one method for viewing petitions with

radically different numbers of total pageviews. Rather than seeing the total pageviews for

each day, which would drastically increase the scale of the graph, viewing everything as

a percentage of the total pageviews puts the different petitions on a more manageable

scale, while retaining the original shape of the graphs.

As Graph 1 illustrates, people are significantly more likely to view a petition immediately

after it is released. Almost 80% of the total pageviews on the 2011 petition to stop SOPA

came from within the first two days. After that, pageviews quickly dropped until they were

negligible seven days after the petition went public. Similarly, over 50% of the pageviews

on a 2012 petition to deport Piers Morgan occurred within the first five days. In fact, of

eight successful and popular petitions analyzed for this study, only two – a petition to

begin construction on a Death Star by 2016 and one to legalize cellphone unlocking

– received significant traffic after the first week, and both received significant press

Graph 1

18

attention. One other petition to place DC license plates on the Presidential motorcade

received a number of views after its first week, but these appear to be more of a random

occurrence than a well-organized movement. No press articles or other reasons could

be found to explain the situation and the total number of pageviews was low enough it

could have been a result of people clicking their way through the site until they arrived

on the page. These three anomalies aside, however, the data suggest most successful

petitions can be predicted within a week of their becoming public.

This knowledge is of use when attempting to predict the likelihood that the Administration

will be forced to issue a response and it makes sense, given what is known about the

way people behave online and the way in which the White House petitions site operates.

People access information that is readily available. That is why websites put links to other

pages on their site within a page – to minimize the effort people need to exert in order

to obtain additional information. Take the White House’s response to the petition calling

for the construction of a Death Star. Of the 2.8 million unique pageviews (the number

of unique IP addresses which accessed the petition response), nearly 100,000 people

clicked on a link to find out how to spot the International Space Station, according to

information released by the White House (Scherer 2013). The information was interesting,

and it was available with minimal effort, so visitors took the opportunity to access it.

The White House petitions page works in similar ways. With thousands accessing

the page each day, the petitions page on default loads the most recent petitions, which

allows visitors to see and sign those most current petitions of interest (to note, there

is also a feature to allow users to sort by most popular petitions, which helps explain

why older, but still popular, petitions continue to receive signatures). If a petition does

not receive significant support within the first few days - enough to move it to the list of

“popular” petitions, it becomes much more difficult to find. Only the three most recent

petitions are displayed on the side bar, and only the 20 most recent are on the default

19

display. The rest must be accessed by either having the direct link or clicking through the

“show more petitions” tab at the bottom of the page. Consequently, it requires more time

and greater effort to locate and sign a days-old petition, so the number of pageviews per

day decreases.

All of this changes if media locate a petition and publish a story. Once this happens

pageviews spike (drastically, in the two cases analyzed, see Graph 1). This is especially

true if the publication advertising the petition has a large following. Again, consider the

petition to begin construction of a Death Star. Graph 2 (on the following page) illustrates

the number of pageviews per day over a period of 35 days, this time as an absolute

number. The petition launched 14 November 2012, and, as Graph 2 reflects, the total

number of pageviews per day was relatively low for the first two weeks. Then, sometime

between 2 December and 3 December, 2012, the number of pageviews skyrocketed.

To conserve and respect the privacy of the White House specific numbers have been

removed from the graph and are referenced only sparingly in-text, but what graph 2

clearly illustrates at this point is a sharp spike in interest, which corresponds almost

perfectly with the release of the first press articles regarding the petition.

On 30 November, 2012, there was one story published which mentioned the petition

only in passing. By 3 December The Hill, the Washington Post, and the Huffington Post

had all picked up the news and published articles on their site. Politico and US News

also ran stories. The 623 signatures and 64,000 pageviews the site had received by

3 December quickly blossomed as people began to flock to the petition. The 64,000

pageviews became 100,000 pageviews, then over 500,000 within a week’s time. By

10 December Fox News reported 13,000 signatures on the petition, marking more than

a 2,000% increase in signatures in just one week, By 11 December that number was

17,000 signatures and by 13 December the petition had crossed the signature threshold.

The White House was obliged to respond.

20

It is almost certain that without this media attention the Death Star petition would

never have received the requisite number of signatures. It was simply trending too low

prior to 3 December to reasonably expect 25,000 signatures by 14 December. That it

did garner the necessary signatures reflects the power media have to drive traffic to the

White House website through their coverage of specific issues. This, too, is significant,

though also to be expected. For the White House, there is not much to be done when

it comes to promoting coverage of petitions, except by making them easier to find, with

the more headline catching ones staying in more prominent locations for longer periods

of time, but this carries with it significant political risk, for the Administration could be

seen as calculating and currying attention, rather than attempting to drive engagement.

The best option is to embrace the coverage, positive and negative, and view it is a free

way to increase traffic to the website.

With petition responses, on the other hand, the White House has much more flexibility.

As with all tools of political communication, We the People presents a significant

Graph 2

21

opportunity to change the dialogue with regards to specific issues.

we the PeoPle: a new form of Political communicationIt would be a mistake, however, to say that We the People was the first example of

the President’s adoption of existing online communications platforms for the purposes of

altering traditional forms of political communication. It is only the latest in a long string.

Through Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and Reddit, President Obama and his staff have

consistently and effectively innovated to use online tools in order to engage with an

increasingly diverse and disengaged audience. As TIME Magazine’s Michael Scherer

remarks in his centerspread piece,

“Thirty years ago, 50 million people watched the nightly news on TV. Now not even half that many do. And whole segments of the public have walled themselves off. How can Obama reach Rush Limbaugh’s audience, except through Rush Limbaugh?” (Scherer 2013)

The advent of the internet has changed the dynamic between politicians and the

constituents, creating the opportunity to not only change the dialogue, but the way

in which the dialogue is conducted. No longer do traditional news outlets serve as

the most effective means to disseminate one’s message, not when ways exist to

easily target audiences without media editorializing. We the People has tipped the

balance of power distinctly towards the Administration by giving the President and

his staff the ability to communicate directly with self-identifying, self-segregating,

and self-aggregating audiences. People who sign petitions give their email and their

permission to be contacted by the White House (We the People). They declare through

their signature the issues in which they are interested (We the People). Ultimately, the

combination of these results in petitioners effectively placing themselves on interest

lists, to be sent updates periodically when new policies or events pertaining to their

issues of interest are announced. But people who only view responses without signing

petitions are also experiencing the Administration’s new communications tools. They

22

are seeing a message free from media scrutiny. More than that, however, they are

seeing a message free from media scrutiny that they themselves have sought.

This is the other side of the coin, the reason the Obama Administration can afford

to expend political capital on a platform not uncommonly ridiculed by mainstream

media. People who petition the Administration for the Impeachment of President Obama

obviously do not support the President or his policies, but when they come to read a

petition response they are seeing an explanation from the Administration as to why they

think their actions have been proper. This is valuable, not for fanning the flames of the

opposition, but for engaging them and creating the opportunity for meaningful dialogue.

This type of communication is doubly valuable for showing that the Administration is willing

to engage with both sides of the debate, rather than simply riding off those who disagree

with the President and his policies. This may help explain why 66% of polled respondents

claim the Administration’s response was helpful to hear, according to numbers released

by the White House (Sabochik 2013). It may also explain why a majority of those polled

say they would create another petition (Sabochik 2013).

The approach is in many ways groundbreaking. In contrast to the opinion that only

lobbyists and special interests are heard in Washington, by way of We the People the

White House is actively encouraging individuals to participate in the political process.

As with more traditional ePetitioning platforms, the more people who sign a petition,

the more attention the Administration pays. This is to be expected. Participation-based

democratic processes rely on a chorus of voices for their significance. The development

to note is that the Administration is actively seeking greater participation; rather than

settling for citizen detachment post-Election Day, the Administration is using its petitions

platform to solicit ideas and ask for greater engagement. And they reward engagement.

When 500 thousand petitioners signed 33 petitions relating to gun violence, President

Obama used a video response to reach out to them directly (We the People 2013). Then,

23

after a highly contentious petition to deport Piers Morgan crossed the threshold, the White

House re-released their video statement from President Obama with an additional written

explanation by Jay Carney asking “When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep

the First in Mind Too” (We the People 2013). In both cases, the Administration utilized

technology and the pre-stated interest of its audience to capitalize on its messaging

strategy and engage with individuals from diverse backgrounds on issues important to

them.

Now, in light of growing public participation, media are beginning to more fully recognize

the vitality and success of We the People. In the last two months, the number of signatures

and petitioners has skyrocketed, increasing from just under 4 million signatures in late

2012 to over 10 million at the beginning of February 2013 (Sabochik 2013). In the words

of the White House, the success has been so great they have had to “raise the signature

threshold” for a second time (Phillips 2013). According to Mr. Phillips, the number of

petitions had doubled in the two months previous to the announcement, with more of

them crossing the 25,000-signature threshold more quickly than ever before.

The increased popularity of the platform hasn’t stopped media rom criticizing the

announcement, however. Slate was especially vocal, asking in a bluntly worded headline,

“Is the White House Trying to Avoid Your Petition?” (Larimore 2013). It’s a pressing

question, certainly, but at the same time, various other petitions responses have drawn

overwhelmingly positive headlines, so the criticism seems somewhat arbitrary. The

Death Star response, for instance, was met with humor as media rushed to bargain

down to “an AT-AT walker” that the Administration should construct instead (Petri 2013).

In a similar vein, the response announcing the Administration’s support of cellphone

unlocking drew positive remarks within the tech community, with even Slate declaring

“Maybe WhiteHouse.gov Petitions Aren’t Useless” (Oremus 2013). The degree to which

the firSt year: changing media oPinionS

24

media opinion oscillates on the basis of individual petition responses would seem to

dull the criticism. And it has. Fewer articles devote time to lamenting the platform, with

more seeming to openly wonder what the next petition will be (Scherer 2013). Overall,

the tenor of the We the People debate has changed drastically over the past 16 months.

It seems those previously concerned with the platform’s validity are still concerned,

but in ways in which people critical of the Administration have always been concerned:

namely, the imbalance between those in power and those seeking to influence power.

Truthfully, as accurate as their criticism may be, this, it seems, is a healthy place to be.

We the People now straddles the divide between serving as a source for mainstream

and fringe news, with petitions as frequently generating policy proclamations as laughs.

new challengeS: a lack of academic reSearchPressing issues still surround We the People outside the media and political spheres.

Although press coverage of the petitions platform is immense, this contrasts with a

desperate lack of dedicated scholarly research. This can be attributed in large partto the

newness of We the People and the fact a vast majority of its data has not been made

public. For instance, save an exclusive group of 21 programmers who attended a White

House “hackathon” to examine the code for We the People, the general public has seen

only a few infographics worth of information.

This severely limits the potential for academic research on We the People, but this

fact alone cannot explain the near absence of research generally related to online

petitions. The demonstrable success of Change.org and Avaaz.org includes not only

their aforementioned campaigns to petition the Bank of America and the Ugandan

Parliament, but extends to thousands of other petitions large and small (Change.org).

They have successfully petitioned France to air the Paralympics, the USDA to rid U.S.

schools of pink slime, and prevented Bolivian President Evo Morales from cutting through

the Amazon, among many other successes (Change.org, Avaaz.org). Yet, despite these

25

successes, scholarly research remains at best difficult to find. JSTOR is one of the largest

online houses for scholarly books and

articles, but in searches containing the

terms “ePetitions,” online petitions” and

“Internet petitions” just 97 results were

returned, four of which were germane

and one of which was accessible

(JSTOR). Given the successes of online petitions this lack of research is puzzling and

disturbing. There seems no satisfying reason for it. On the one hand, it may reflect a

difficulty in accessing data surrounding petitions, in which case public entities and private

organizations should consider their obligations to release information so institutions can

begin to understand this revitalized form of direct democracy.

On the other hand, the lack of research may also reflect a larger prejudice against online

petitions. It has been held by some that online petitions and digital activism in general

are forms of “slacktivism,” effortless and by extension, meaningless forms of activism.

Unfortunately the term is misguided at best and specious at worst. Slacktivism has been

in use throughout the 2000s, fed equally by misunderstanding and skepticism, but as it

was originally construed slacktivism was not a pejorative, but a eulogism. It was a way

of praising those who involved themselves in grassroots activities to affect change in

their local communities (Christensen 2011). Quickly, though, it evolved into the pejorative

we now know it as. As put by a teacher quoted in the New York Times, Slacktivism is

“the desire people have to do something good without getting out of their chair” (Feder

2002). Sadly it is this idea that many, from prominent researchers to personal friends,

have come to accept.

As psychological and behavioral researcher, Malcolm Gladwell, asserts in line with

this traditional understanding of activism, activism is something that “requires strong tie

A comprehensive JSTOR search for material related to online petitions returned fewer than 100 entries, four of which were germane and one of which was accessible.

26

connections that help us persevere in times of danger” (Gladwell 2010). His argument,

which appears in a 2010 New Yorker article entitled Small Change, why the revolution will

not be tweeted centers around the story of the Greensboro sit-ins, which Gladwell claims

epitomizes strong tie connections and true activism. “We seem to have forgotten what

activism is,” Gladwell laments (Gladwell 2010). The strong ties, which rely on personal

connections and peer pressure have been lost in the ethers of online political participation.

What sustains social media connections is not direct, but indirect links. What creates

engagement online is not “high-risk,” but low-risk asks. “Social networks,” therefore,

“are effective at increasing participation [sic] – by lessening the level of motivation that

participation requires” (Gladwell 2010). In this, and at each point in this argument, Gladwell

is not incorrect, but his premise is flawed and in the latter half he seems to forget that

network connections, which are the basis of indirect connectedness, do indeed form

from and into hierarchical connections; connections, which, he says, are necessary for

true activism.

Any movement, whether organized in a hierarchy or as a network, spawns from a

person’s actions. Gladwell uses Wikipedia as an example of a network without a central

power structure, to“[direct] and [correct] each entry,” but Wikipedia does have a central

team which works to organize the website and maintain its servers while periodically

working with the public (Wikipedia). Yes, the site relies on a vast network of volunteer

editors for daily maintenance, but without the central team this collaborative endeavor

would not exist. Wikipedia is the perfect example of a network, but a network based on

an original hierarchical structure.

His argument is further undermined by the events that occurred throughout the Middle

East in 2011. Bands of online activists used social media to organize offline protests.

Eventually, the strongest voices emerged as leaders and, when Mubarak resigned, in the

case of Egypt, those leaders rushed to fill the power vacuum. Arguments can be made

27

that the moderate leaders’ efforts were unsuccessful given the continued unrest, but

that belittles their initial organizing achievement and is really beside the point. Network

connections can and do develop into hierarchical ones.

More than that, Randy Paynter argues in Slacktivism: Why Snopes got it wrong

about internet petitions, online activism “lowers hurdles [that] lead to more widespread

involvement” (Paynter 2011). Network connections and low-risk asks are useful, and

necessary in contemporary political participation because they create a means to get

involved, which can lead to further opportunities and willingness to engage.

Not all activism needs to be the high-risk activity Gladwell construes. In fact, the low-

risk activities he condemns are exactly the kind needed in contemporary society. With so

many believing their voice doesn’t matter, these low-risk, high-reward activities may not

always create the dramatic headlines the Greensboro Sit-Ins achieved, but they allow

people to feel and see the effects of their involvement. The people who received the

news the White House was opening access to publicly funded research; they made a

difference. The individuals who organized to legalize cell phone unlocking; they’re making

a difference. And the people who are working to stop Congress from enacting internet

restrictions through SOPA and its descendants; they, too, are making a difference.

Furthermore, online organizing is not as effortless as Gladwell makes it out to be.

Furthermore, online organizing is not as effortless as Gladwell makes it out to be. Despite

more than 10 million signatures over 158,000 petitions just 163 petitions have received

responses, with 4 additional awaiting a response (Sabochik 2013). This means the odds

of creating a successful petition are approximately 1 in 1000 (0.11%, to be more precise).

Suggested by this is that the organizing work necessary to make a petition successful

is tremendous. Broadening this to the thousands of petitions created daily across the

various online petition platforms, that success rate drops lower still2. Online petitions

2Because petition website are manifold and release numbers only periodically, an exact number is not available at this time.

28

are a low-cost way to get engaged in the community, but they are not effortless. On the

contrary, for organizers, they require dedication and a refined message (Change.org).

This makes the success they achieve all the more noteworthy.

As Paynter acknowledges in his defense of online petitions and digital activism,

naysayers and skeptics are “a dime a dozen” (Paynter 2011). What makes Gladwell’s

skepticism particularly worrisome and worth commenting upon is his influence in the

academic community and his continued commitment to remaining skeptical despite

a growing body of evidence suggesting his claims are baseless. As researchers and

educators with the power to influence the thinking of readers and students, Gladwell and

his likeminded colleagues have an obligation to consider new developments within their

purview open-mindedly. To act otherwise risks becoming obsolete.

Online activism has played a role in engaging greater numbers of individuals and

encouraging broader political participation. This is not an insignificant achievement and,

while it may not be activism in the same form as the Greensboro Sit-Ins, it does have

a purpose. Social media has altered the ways in which we communicate and organize

to affect political change. Hopefully scholars will begin to recognize this to a greater

degree than they have. Hopefully the skeptics’ voices will continue to die down. Hopefully

more research will be published as to the nature of online activism. Much of the media,

mainstream and alternative, has changed its stance. It’s time academia followed suit.

concluSion: a vaSt exPanSe awaitSIn the face of such continuing skepticism from the academic community, however,

the most promising answer is further engagement with the general public. The past 16

months have seen a definitive shift in opinion with regards to the media’s view of We the

People. The platform has been tremendously successfully in the public eye, and iit only

seems to be becoming more successful. Further research will come with time, as the

code and data for We the People are made public and the skeptics within the academic

29

community begin to lose ground to those interested in the research and community

building potential of online petitions.

When that happens, the research opportunities will be vast. Key to developing an

understanding of We the Pepole and online petitions in general will be studying the profile

of petitioners. Are they living in predominantly rural communities? An urban ones? Are

they Black? White? Rich? Poor? Do they cluster in regions? Are they spread across the

country? Are the answers to these questions dependent on the petition? A more robust

knowledge of the demographic information will allow the development of new tools

targeted at engaging more communities for longer periods of time. Maybe this will result

in more pageviews after that initial drop-off. Perhaps it will spur further media attention.

Whatever the result, such action will create opportunities for greater engagement, a

critical task in an age of disempowerment. Any tool to allay the concern that someone’s

voice is insignificant is worth investing in.

In More than Gimmicks, Nancy Scola concluded the White House was “nudging

conversations” with We the People, increasing participation in government and offering a

way for citizens to engage with the debate and move the dialogue forward (Scola 2013).

With more people online more often than not, the White House has used We the People

to reinvest in an age-old practice and rise above the partisan debate to engage with all

portions of the political spectrum – everyone from the Star Wars fan who wants to see

a Death Star light the sky to the reactionary conservative who hopes for the President’s

impeachment. We the People gives those concerned that their voice goes unheard an

outlet, a means to connect, and a way to create the change they hope to see.

It is a platform that cannot, must not, and will not go uninvestigated. It is a platform

that has proven its worth time and again, outlasting criticism and outmaneuvering would-

be Internet trolls. It is a platform that is very much the future of our Democracy.

30

workS cited: alPhabetzied Primary and Secondary SourceS1. “1820 - 1861: HOLDING THE UNION TOGETHER.” U.S.Capitol Visitors Center.

N.p.. Web. 20 Mar 2013. 2. A Big Change is Coming to WhiteHouse.gov. 2011. Video. YouTube Web. 20

Mar 2013. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKgCZAsGTfY&feature=play-er_embedded>.

3. Brito, Jerry. “How the White House’s New Online Petition System Can Be Kept Accountable.” TIME Tech. TIME Inc., 2 Sep 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

4. Bufkin, Sarah. “Death Star Petition Urges White House To Build Killer Space Station.” The Huffington Post. AOL, 3 Dec 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

5. BulletinNews. “Leading the News.” BulletinNEWS. Bulletin News, 20 Mar 2013. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

6. Christensen, Henrik Serup. “Political activities on the Internet: Slacktivism or political participation by other means?” First Monday. 16.2 (2011): n. page. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.

7. Cornish, Audie. “White House’s ‘We The People’ Petitions Find Mixed Success.” All Things Considered. National Public Radio: 3 Jan 2013. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

8. Demby, Gene. “White House Website Draws Petition To End All Petitions.” The Two-Way. National Public Radio, 31 Dec 2012. Web. Web. 20 Mar. 2013

9. Farrington, Dana. “White House Death Star Petition Wouldn’t Pass New Thresh-old.” The Two-Way. National Public Radio, 16 Jan 2013. Web. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.

10. Feder, Barnaby. “They Weren’t Careful What They Hoped For.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 29 May 2002. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

11. Foxnews.com. “Over 13,000 petition White House to build a Death Star.” Fox News. New Corporation, 100 Dec 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

12. Garber, Megan. “The White House Petition Site Is a Joke (and Also the Future of Democracy).” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 16 Jan 2013. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

13. Gladwell, Malcolm. “Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted.” The New Yorker. Conde Nast, 4 Oct 2010. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

14. Good, Chris. “Video of the Day: Obama Wants to Hear Your Complaints.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 1 Sep 2011. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.

15. Goyette, Braden. “Petition to build a ‘Death Star’ garners 17,000 signatures on White House website.” New York Daily News. Daily News, L.P., 11 Dec 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

31

16. Herb, Jeremy. “Petition: Obama should build Death Star.” The Hill. News Com-munications Inc., 3 Dec 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

17. Howard, Alexander. “COMMENTARY: Got a Problem You Want the White House to Fix? E-Petition It!.” The National Journal. Atlantic Media Company, 10 Sep 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

18. Indvik, Laura. “iPhone 4S Coming to 14 More Countries, First AT&T LTE Phones Arrive Sunday: Today’s Top Stories.” Mashable. Mashable Inc., 2 Nov 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

19. Jefferson, Thomas. United States. National Archives and Records Association. The Declaration of Independence. Washington, 1776. Web.

20. Larimore, Rachael. “Is the White House Trying to Avoid Your Petition?.” Slate. The Washington Post Company, 13 Mar 2013. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

21. Meckler, Laura. “Dear White House: Please Tell Us the Truth About E.T.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 18 Oct 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

22. Memmott, Mark. “White House: Government Has No Evidence Of Extraterres-trial Life.” The Two-Way. National Public Radio, 8 Nov 2011. Web. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.

23. Oremus, Will. “Maybe WhiteHouse.gov Petitions Aren’t Useless After All.” Slate. The Washington Post Company, 6 Mar 2013. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

24. Paynter, Randy. “Slacktivism: Why Snopes Got it Wrong About Internet Peti-tions.” Care2.com. Care2, 15 Feb 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

25. Petri, Alexandra. “Coping with the White House rejection of the Death Star petition.” The Washington Post. The Washington Post Company, 14 Jan 2013. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

26. Petri, Alexandra. “Is the White House petition to construct a Death Star by 2016 what America needs?.” The Washington Post. The Washington Post Company, 3 Dec 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

27. Phillips, Macon. “We the People Takes the Next Step: Responding to Your Pe-titions.” The White House Blog. The White House, 26 Oct 2011. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.

28. Phillips, Macon. “Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the Peo-ple.” The White House Blog. The White House, 15 Jan 2013. Web. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.

29. Sabochik, Katelyn. United States. The White House. Office of Digital Strategy. 2013. Print.

30. Scherer, Michael. “Why the White House Loves Your Death Star Petition.” TIME Swampland. TIME Inc., 31 Jan 2013. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

32

31. Schlesinger, Robert. “That’s No Petition, It’s a Space Station.” U.S. News & World Report. U.S. News & World Report, L.P., 3 Dec 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

32. Scola, Nancy. “More Than Gimmicks: How Obama’s Tech Tools Are Shifting the Debate.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 5 Mar 2013. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

33. Shear, Michael. “A Petitioning System Goes to Pot, and More.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 26 Sep 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

34. Snider, J.H. “The White House’s New We the People Petition Website.” The Huffington Post. AOL, 11 Oct 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

35. Snider, J.H. “The White House’s We The People Petition Website: First Year Re-port Card.” The Huffington Post. AOL, 23 Sep 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

36. Snider, J.H. “What Is the Democratic Function of the White House’s We The People Petition Website?” The Huffington Post. AOL, 20 Oct 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

37. Sniderman, Zachary. “Alien Invasion Not Imminent, White House Says.” Mash-able. Mashable Inc., 7 Nov 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

38. Sniderman, Zachary. “Public Gets Passive Aggressive on White House’s Petition Platform.” Mashable. Mashable Inc., 8 Nov 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

39. Sniderman, Zachary. “Public Petitions Obama to Kill E-Parasites Act.” Mashable. Mashable Inc., 2 Nov 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

40. Sniderman, Zachary. “This Week in Politics & Digital: The Public Speaks.” Mash-able. Mashable Inc., 23 Sep 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

41. Speigel, Lee. “’We The People’ Petition Seeks Truth Of Alien Visits From Obama Administration.” The Huffington Post. AOL, 3 Oct 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

42. Staff. “Top Guard officer joins Joint Chiefs of Staff.” Army Times. Gannett Gov-ernment Media, 4 Jan 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2013. <http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/01/army-

43. Tau, Byron. “White House petitioners want a Death Star by 2016.” Politico. Allbritton Communications, 3 Dec 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

44. Taylor, Chris. “Mr. President, Build This Death Star.”Mashable. Mashable Inc., 13 Dec 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

45. White, Micah. “Clicktivism is ruining leftist activism.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 12 Aug 2010. Web. 20 Mar 2013.

46. Wilson, Chris. “Dear President Obama: My White House petition requires your magical powers.” Yahoo! News. Yahoo!, 29 Nov 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2013.