I have always figured that in matters that were relatively closely debated, our congressmen would pay attention to their constituents regarding upcoming votes. They tally the pros and cons and vote in ways that will likely get them re-elected in their districts/states. But I wonder to what extent they take in to consideration the calls or letters that come from outside the area they represent. Do any Dopers have any relevant information that can tell me if it makes any difference in an upcoming vote if I contact someone from a different area of the country and request that they vote a certain way? Do they pay ANY attention to people who can’t vote for them?
They will tend to disregard such calls/email.
The interest of congressmen listening to what people are telling them is connected to their interest in representing their district, and less politely, their interest in their own electoral fortunes, for the most part.
It’s absolutely disgusting, but they will NOT listen to letters (and calls, I presume) from outside their sphere of influence. I tried appealing to the common sense of our US Senators when Bush wanted to outsource the USA’s port security to anyone from anywhere…after 9/11, no less! One would think all Americans have a vested interest in keeping our ports secure. But, I guess I am an idealist. Obviously, no one gives a damn outside their tiny bubble - even if it means we ALL go down together. Such small-minded fools!
Moved to IMHO.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
+1
Congressmen were elected by their constituents to represent those constituents.
Really? That’s shocking. “Those” people won’t listen to you because you didn’t/couldn’t vote for the vast majority of them. But “they” weren’t elected to represent you, were they? What about your own U.S. Senators? Did they listen to you?
I was just fantasizing about a form of government in which the elected officials were also expected to guide their constituents when circumstances called for it. In a republic, since all citizens cannot be expected to be experts in all areas, knowledgeable elected representatives might take the opportunity to act in the best interests of the public. You know, sort of be a leader. Maybe even listen to voices of those who cannot vote for him but who might inform him regarding the issues.
Mostly I think they just listen to their constituents, but here is a place it might make a difference:
House Speaker Paul Ryan: Phone numbers and email.
I tried to find a contact number and/or email address for Reince Priebus in his capacity as WH Chief of Staff, but was unable to locate anything. Might be worth a Google search or two. Perhaps your Google-fu is stronger than mine.
Not trying to diminish your point, but experts in issues typically share their wisdom by things like testifying in hearings and whatnot, as opposed to making phone calls to receptionists.
I don’t think so. I’m guessing that the number of experts in, say, public education far outnumber any professionals who might have testified on behalf of or against Betsy DeVos. But it seems that calls or letters from those people are pretty much ignored if they come from out of state or out of district.
To be honest, if I hold the majority view, I’ll be saying that politicians should listen to their constituents. If I hold the minority view, then I’ll be saying that politicians should show leadership and go against the grain.
Politicians should always heed the opinions of their constituents and take them into account in their decision-making, but should not always just blindly follow them.
Suppose, for instance, that you have a guy who campaigned on, say, three major issues. Those issues are what’s most important to him, and he won, so it’s reasonable for him to assume that his constituents mostly agree with him on those issues. Any time a vote comes up on one of those issues, he’s going to vote his conscience.
But there are a lot more than three issues in politics. Some of them, he has opinions on, but doesn’t consider them as important as his big issues. Some of them, he has very weak opinions on, or complicated opinions that aren’t really reflected by a “yes” or a “no” vote. Some of them, he might not have any particular view on at all. But he’s still asked to vote on those issues. Why wouldn’t he, in that case, vote in accordance with his constituents?
From an impartial viewpoint, I’d say that it’s possible for the majority to be wrong about an issue. The elected leader(s) would then be tasked with determining the best way to vote. How do they obtain the most significant information? How do they navigate the various views? Do they follow or do they lead? Do I do what I have discovered is the right thing, and possibly sacrifice votes - and my elected position - or do I please the people who voted for me, even though I have come to believe they are wrong on this issue? In theory, I’d guess this is the central dilemma of the thoughtful elected official. (This has morphed significantly from my original question, but I didn’t get any factual answers - maybe there aren’t any - so here’s where we are now.)