The E-Petition Platform of the German Bundestag
-
Upload
jan-schmidt -
Category
News & Politics
-
view
289 -
download
0
Transcript of The E-Petition Platform of the German Bundestag
The E-Petition Platform of the German Bundestag
Dr. Jan-Hinrik Schmidt (& Katharina Johnsen)
Hamburg 13.01.2015
E-petitions: Different settings
E-petitions (1) are located in different contexts of political decision-making and (2) are employed by different actors
Informal & ad-hoc expression of opinions
Formal procedures of participation connected to
legislating institutions
Actors: Long-term, coordinated, strategic organisation of interests
Actors: Ad-hoc-aggregation of individual people („swarm“ / „crowd“)
E-Petition of mid-wife organizations to
the Bundestag
E-Petition on openpetition.de to fire Markus Lanz as
talkshow host
E-Petition on „Energiewende“ as part of a campact.de – campaign
Hamburg 2 of 16
E-Petition Platform of the German Bundestag (1/2)
2005: German Bundestag started E-Petition Platform as a pilot project
2008: After sucessful evaluation the platform went into regular operations
August/September 2012: relaunch of the platform; changes to the discussion
area of petitions and option to sign petitions pseudonymously were introduced
Hamburg 3 of 16
Data Sources of Study
1. Database of platform
• 2.653 Petitions, started after 13.10.2008 and before 1.2.2013
• ~ 1,32 Mil. users
• ~ 3,48 Mil. individual signatures
2. Online survey of platform users
• Field time: 2. August - 29. September 2013
• Questionnaire was announced on main page of the platform („recent
announcements“); additional announcements spread via Twitter, blogs and boards
• 724 users visited the front page of the questionnaire
• 33,7% finished questionnaire (n=244)
Relatively small sample, especially problematic for analysis in subgroups
No representativity; presumably regular users and more active users are over-
represented; casual users and those visiting petitions directly under-represented
Hamburg 5 of 16
Central Questions
1. How many signatures do petitions get?
2. What are the users‘ reasons to sign a petition?
3. What impact did the introduction of pseudonymous signatures have?
Hamburg 6 of 16
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
15
61
11
16
62
21
27
63
31
38
64
41
49
65
51
60
66
61
71
67
71
82
68
81
93
69
91
10
46
11
01
11
56
12
11
12
66
13
21
13
76
14
31
14
86
15
41
15
96
16
51
17
06
17
61
18
16
18
71
19
26
19
81
20
36
20
91
21
46
22
01
22
56
23
11
23
66
24
21
24
76
25
31
25
86
26
41
Number of signatures per petition
Signatures per petition…
… on average: 1.311 (SD 6.350; Median 351)
> 10.000 signees: 46 petitions
> 50.000 signees: 11 petitions
Maximum: 133.445 (#zensursula)
Ø signers/day 33,4 (SD 163,56)
No significant correlation with age of platform in months, i.e. no general „knowledge of platform“ effect
Hamburg 7 of 16
Significant differences between different topics
33.7
118.2
63.6
56.7
41.6
36.4
35.6
32.9
25.8
25.7
23
20.1
13.7
12.5
12.2
17.6
36
35.1
16.5
17
14.5
12.9
12.8
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Insgesamt
Media (1,9)
Environment (6,2)
Justice (12,7)
Health (12,7)
Education & Science (2,6)
Parliament & Government (2,5)
Social affairs (9,4)
Finance & taxes (12,4)
Consumer protection (5,2)
Domestic affairs (5,4)
Economy (7,6)
Labor (12,1)
Traffic (8,1)
Other (1,3)
Avg. (with outliers) Avg. (without outliers)
Fig. 1: No. of signatures per day (avg.) for different topics (n = 2582 / 2628)
n=2582 / 2628
Topics:
• ‚manual coding“ based on the categories given in the title of petition
• (in brackets) % of all petitions
Hamburg 8 of 16
The „Spill-Over-Effect“
18.5
19.1
9.6
16.3
0 10 20 30 40 50
overlap with "10.000+petition" (b)
overlap with "50.000+petition" (a)
no Overlap Overlap
n=2607 (a) F=6,908 df=1; **; (b) F=30,494 df=1; ***
• Jungherr/Jürgens (2010) found that petitions which overlap with a popular petition will get more signatures (1)
• Spill-over-effect is visible in our data as well
Fig 2.: Signatures per day (avg.)
(1) Jungherr, Andreas / Jürgens, Pascal (2010): The Political Click: Political Participation through E-Petitions in Germany. Policy & Internet, Vol. 2, Issue 4, p. 131-165. Hamburg 9 of 16
Central Questions
1. How many signatures do petitions get?
2. What are the users‘ reasons to sign a petition?
3. What impact did the introduction of pseudonymous signatures have?
Hamburg 10 of 16
“I signed the last petition, because ...“
Reasons for signing a petition (avg. of 4-pt-scale)
3.24
3.44
3.5
3.54
3.85
1 2 3 4
… E-Petitions can be signed without much effort.
… it expressed my already existing opinion.
… its concern and arguments convinced me.
… I want to have its concern discussed publicly.
… I want the Bundestag to deal with the concern.
Answers given on a 4-point-Likert scale from 1 („Disagree completely“) to 4 („Agree completely“);inverted from questionnaire; Average without „Don‘t know“;. n=208-214
Hamburg 11 of 16
Central Questions
1. How many signatures do petitions get?
2. What are the users‘ reasons to sign a petition?
3. What impact did the introduction of pseudonymous signatures have?
Hamburg 12 of 16
“How do you usually sign E-Petitions on the platform?“
Signing petitions: Real Names vs. Pseudonyms (%)
27
13.5
11.2
16.7
31.6
0 20 40 60 80 100
Always with a pseudonym
Usually with a pseudonym
Sometimes with a pseudonym, sometimeswith my real name
Usually with my real name
Always with my real name
Share in %; n=215 Hamburg 13 of 16
Signing petitions: Share of Real Names vs. Pseudonyms
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 100
% o
f p
etit
ion
s w
ho
hav
e X
pe
rce
nt
cle
ar n
ame
si
gnat
ure
s
How many % of the users use clear names?
After the relaunch in fall ´12, no petition had more than 50 % share of real name signatures
Most petitions have around 20-30% real names
Ø signers/day 33,4 (SD 163,56)
before 16.8.2012 32,8 (SD 158,24)
after 16.8.2012 39,9 (SD 209,10)
slight, but statistically not significant effect of switch to pseudonymous signing
i.e. no general „mobilisation of those formerly deterred“ effect
Hamburg 14 of 16
Conclusion and Outlook
The analysis provides first insights into the use of the E-Petition platform of
the German Bundestag
Most E-Petitions acquire very few signatures („long tail“), only a handful has
reached more than 10.000 signers or even the quorum
„Success“ of a petition depends on topic, but also on temporal coincidence with
other popular petitions
Signers want to bring the issue of the petition to the attention of the German
Bundestag; technical ease to find and sign petitions online is a contributing factor
to sign, but apparently not the main driver
After relaunch, pseudonymous signatures are default setting; as a result, majority
of signatures is pseudonymously, but no significant increase of overall signatures
Possible follow-up research
Deeper inspection of petition practices and motivations (e.g. via in-depth
interviews)
Comparing Bundestag dataset to other petition platforms (e.g. openpetition.de,
change.org, …)
…Hamburg 15 of 16
Thank you very much!
Dr. Jan-Hinrik Schmidt
Hans-Bredow-Institut
Rothenbaumchaussee 38, 20148 Hamburg
www.hans-bredow-institut.de
www.schmidtmitdete.de
www.dasneuenetz.de
Hamburg 16 of 16