AN ONLINE petition to ban Donald Trump from making a state visit to Britain this summer is destined to be ignored. The petition has so far been signed by 1.8m people, nearly four times as many as a similar one a year ago, which aimed to stop Mr Trump from entering the country. America’s new president is a popular topic: 35 of the 2,595 open petitions on Parliament’s website are related to him. The intensity of feeling regarding Mr Trump, and the rapid rate at which the petition calling for his visit to be blocked attracted signatures, will not shift the government’s position on inviting him. But the government is compelled to take specified steps when e-petitions reach certain thresholds. Parliamentary time has been set aside to consider the Trump petition on February 20th.

The government has promoted the use of e-petitions as a means of fostering political engagement, even though they can sometimes be troublesome for Downing Street. After the Brexit referendum last June, a pro-Remain campaign asked for a second vote, attracting 4.2m signatures. In some parliamentary constituencies the number of people who signed it accounted for a third of the electorate (though signatories don’t have to be registered voters).

Yet few petitions make any difference. Of the 26,249 so far, only 371 have had an official response and a mere 47 have been debated in Parliament. Some 17,120 were dismissed for various reasons, often because the subjects were outside the government’s remit, or duplicated by other petitions.

Can an e-petition ever be anything other than a futile protest? Some promote obviously good causes and help to highlight significant issues or encourage further scrutiny. Two examples: a petition on a meningitis B vaccine for all children, which had the support of 823,348 people, and the push for full disclosure on the 1989 Hillsborough football disaster.

However, the worthy are always in danger of being swamped by the whimsical. Giving “status to police dogs and horses as police officers” (175 signatures) and “petitions that obtain 500,000 signatures should automatically force a referendum” (signed by only 211) are not pressing issues for many. And rejected petitions, including one to “stop people starting petitions just because they’re upset” and another pleading that “Donald Triumph [sic] should be given a night hood [and made a] night of Great Brian” (probably a joke), still consume official time. It is near-effortless to launch online petitions: they only need five supporters. But it is just as easy for the government to ignore them.