Mailing a letter to their local office in the District may get to them faster – often that mail is not sent offsite for weeks to be screened like this.
And I’ll bet he then gave stump speeches saying that he voted that way because he received thousands of e-mails from his constituents worried about the ACA.
Great idea.
…and never mentioned the emails he got in favor of the ACA.
Thanks for that link, Lance, it makes it sound like emails really do make a difference, though there is a cryptic reference to emails sent not by a constituent but on their behalf.
When you get an email from an organization saying “click here to send a message to your Congressman about …” – those generate an emails to the appropriate office, usually based on your zipcode. Their office will get a bunch of emails from different addresses, but all with identical titles and the exact same wording.
Such ‘mass emails’ are considered by the congressional office, but they make much less impression than one actually typed out in their own words and sent by a constituent.
Even real letters don’t always make the impression desired. I remember years ago my Rep showing us one that he said had not influenced him much, even though it had been pulled from the pile of letters and passed around the office. It was hand-written on paper and mailed to the. It started out: *
"Dear insert the name of your representative here,
I demand that you vote to protect my Second Amendment right …'*
It doesn’t hurt. I think they do pay attention to numbers anyway. If they get 5000 emails opposing a plan, they might think twice about it, and if 2000 people call complaining about something they might notice. You never know. They are supposed to represent you, and if you don’t tell them what you think, how can they do that?
Money talks
In general a letter requires more effort and personal commitment that a phone call, and a phone call requires more than an e-mail, and an e-mail requires more than a “like” or a “click here” or whatever. So in terms of affecting a politician’s assessment of the public mood, they’ll be weighted accordingly (unless the politician is very stupid). A single letter is assumed to represent a large number of people who think similarly, but haven’t written; a single click, not so many people.
In terms of making your views known, the most effective thing you can do is to turn up in person at a clinic run by a politician, and talk about it. This will have more impact that anything else that you, individually, can do. If you can’t do that then write a letter, and so on down through the hierarchy.
Also, the politician doesn’t care greatly about the cogency of your arguments, or the logical force of your reasons for holding the position you do, so you don’t need to explain this at length in your letter. What he mainly cares about is the strength of your feelings, and the extent to which he thinks you will influence others to share your position.
Back before e-mail, there was a company that would allow a group to send the names and addresses of members (with their permission) to the company, which would then generate letters with different paper, ink, and wording to make the impression that they were being written by each individual instead of as part of a centralized campaign.
Probably, but I think that’s a bit of a mistake on their part.
If there’s a group behind the identical, mass e-mails that take just seconds to send, that may indicate less caring on the part of the thousands of senders - but it also indicates that there’s a group that is generating awareness of the issue among thousands of poeple And that same group is sure to inform those same thousands of people of the details again, including how each member of Congress ended up voting on that issue.
The huge problem with email is that it is very difficult to tell if it comes from your constituents or not. With mail, they can look at the return address. With a phone call, they can ask.
I have never worked for a legislator but I have worked for a state agency and I have been the person that receives and reacts to communications like this. So, speaking from personal experience, letters are the best because they are generally written by the sender and are thought out and sincere. There are no form letters anymore, there are form emails. The form emails are an indicator of general interest and support for an issue one way or the other. But they are also usually not telling anybody anything they don’t already now. The form email is easily sent and easily dismissed.
A personal email, one that does not resemble the other thousand that come in, that gets noticed. Form emails are so pointless that I would received occasional missives months and years after an issue was decided because someone ran across something on the internet and did not check the date.
If an issue interests you, take ten minutes and get personally involved. It does make a difference.
I worked as a congressional aid many years ago. Part of my daily job was stuffing envelopes with pre-printed responses to the letters he received. If you letter agreed with him, you got a nice thank you letter. If you disagreed, you got the “you are a dumbass” letter that was very politely written. When I took the job, I didn’t consider myself to be behind any one party, this guy put me off on Republican politics so much I haven’t voted for one since.
As I said, this attitude is understandable, but I think it’s a mistake, especially for an elected official. It doesn’t matter whether someone cares really really alot. They cared enough to send that form email. Some group that does care really really alot got them to send it. That group is likely to communicate with the sender again to tell them how things worked out and urge the sender to vote against the politician who didn’t listen. And if I get a few sincere message from someone who cares really really alot and 100,000 form emails, those form emails still matter in bulk.
More people should experience that.