It’s not so much that they won’t take the time to help with specific issues, or they won’t treat you like a constituent. But on policy issues they vote counter to your desires, and trying to convince them to reconsider their position is a waste. At least it’s a waste on Tea Party/MAGA reps.
I’ve sent nicely worded, well-reasoned letters to Reps about issues of importance. I get a polite letter back that basically says my opinion doesn’t change their mind. I’m sure I really shouldn’t expect otherwise. They got elected on a platform of closing public libraries and so they feel that the majority of their constituents want them to close public libraries. Or whatever. I made that one up, but it’s coming I’m sure.
But if I want a representative that supports the causes I do and protects the liberties I want protected, I would need to move. And while I’m no longer tied to a job that’s fixed, my family is located here and not likely to move, so I’m here.
There are one or two districts in Texas with Democrat Reps, but not the one I live in. It should be one, but gerrymandering prevents it.
You’re doing better than I am. I get back polite letters saying, more or less, ‘we will take your views into consideration’ – with no indication that anyone’s even bothered to notice what specifically those views are, let alone what arguments I made to support them. I think my letters go either straight into the trash or into a large file labeled ‘probably won’t vote for us’; but it’s possible that’s the answer everybody gets, including the people who wrote to agree with them.
Have you tried not trying to persuade them, but rather only telling them what your underlying concerns are and asking them if there is anything they can do to help?
For example if your library is closing and you relied on it for internet access, your rep may know a nearby public facility offering internet access. They’re not going to tell you to fuck off or something like that.
They are called representatives but really they are your liasons to government, and if your rep thinks they know how to solve problems better than you, lean into it and ask them to solve your problems. They might not be able to actually resolve your problem but in that case you’ve made your point.
The one time I had an issue of that sort I got sent in a circular round among multiple agencies. Eventually I wound up back with the first one which fed me the same crap they had the first time.
But what I was talking about wasn’t ‘can you help me find a library?’ What I was talking about was ‘you really ought to change your position on x and start voting the other way on it, and this is why’. An actual response to my reasons that wound up still disagreeing with me would be one thing; but I get no indication that they’ve even read them.
Because my issues weren’t “I need help with x,” they were policy issues like “public libraries serve a variable function for society by … White I understand there are concerns over certain kinds of books being held, there’s a process in the library for curating their collection and for evaluating patron concerns about specific books. But libraries serve the community as a whole, and the books avaliable should serve everyone’s needs, not be limited by the personal evaluation of a few.”
Blah blah blah, again this is an example I’m making up now, not an issue I’ve previously addressed.
My point is, if it were just getting help with a problem, they might do that. It’s not. It’s that I want them to support my causes and not censor things, or not fund religious orgs with taxpayer money, or whatever - policy positions.
Kay Bailey Hutchison, John Cornyn, whoever. My politics aren’t theirs.
Yes, hence my suggestion to write about the underlying problem instead of arguing for your preferred solution. If there is one thing I have learned about persuasion, and learning in general, it is that presenting your arguments is about 1% as effective as encouraging someone to think through their own.
If you are writing against a policy position, you should be able to articulate its negative impact on you in concrete, human terms. My group can’t get a permit from the city. I/my relative/my friend can’t afford groceries. My daily commute is over an hour long due to traffic. The water bill is too high. &etc.
If the only problem you have with a policy is that it you think it’s wrong on principle, and you can’t make that human connection, then how much is your 2c really worth?
My complaint is that there was no sign that they’d ever read what I was saying; even to skim through enough to have some vague idea what that was. It doesn’t matter how you present something to somebody who’s not going to notice anything other than whether there was money enclosed.
An aide almost certainly skimmed the letter enough to have a vague idea of what it was. Although maybe they have AI doing it now, who knows.
So, there are two approaches to representation.
One is for the elected official to say, I was elected to represent the wishes of the people. I ran a platform with positions on the issues, and the people elected me because my positions have popular support. The popular mandate is in the platform I ran on. My job is to essentially serve as my constituency’s delegation to government. Hence the name, delegate representation. If you write to me for help with a problem, I’ll do the best I can to help. If you write to me explaining why you disagree with me on policy, I probably won’t read it because even if I changed my mind, I wouldn’t change my vote. (Corollary: If you represent a lot of people yourself, i.e. a large employer or a union, I might listen to your complaints.) I might keep track of how many constituents support/oppose a measure. If you want me to vote differently, you need to convince my constituents, not me.
The other approach is for the elected official to say, I was elected because the people have looked at my character and they have confidence in my abilities. The popular mandate is in me, personally. My job is to make decisions on behalf of my constituents. If you write to me for help with a problem, I’ll do the best I can to help. If you write to me explaining why you disagree with me on policy, I may or may not read it. (Corollary: If you donate lots of money, or otherwise represent something important to me, I may or may not listen to your complaints.) If you want me to vote differently, you need to convince me. This one is called Burkean representation.
I appreciate that suggestion, but you assume I didn’t do that. Well, perhaps I wasn’t specific in naming a name or go into pages of explanation, but I did make explanations of why those policies hurt people.
The point is one letter from me saying “policy x is bad because it affects people this way” is overshadowed by “most of my constituents prefer my position”.
Be real. If I were representative and I got a letter from some constituent that I should vote against any legislation that would expand abortion protection, I can’t think of any reason I would be convinced to change my mind.
I would, however, read their justification and try to explain why I disagree. I did as much with someone on my friends list on Facebook, a few times until it became a waste of time. Maybe as a politician, I would use that to frame a form letter for similar letters. Hell, maybe I’d try AI and see how well it does. But I would at least have a staffer responsible for reading and responding with some sort of guidance.
But the point stands. My rep and my senators and my state reps are all supporting positions I oppose, and it feels like there’s nothing I can do beyond voting, mostly futilely.
See, whenever I read things like “The Electoral College is a bad idea”- I hear a subtext- OUR candidates do better in the popular vote. But what would happen is somehow the Dems got control of several smaller states, but in red states like Texas, the GOP majority added up- so that the Dems won the EC but the GOP edged us out in the popular vote. All of a sudden, I think we’d LOVE the Electoral College.
It is only a bad idea to us, as we are on the wrong side of those numbers.
I think we are misunderstanding each other. Say you voted for a law prohibiting religious displays on certain public property. A constituent writes you and says his group really wants to express their love for religion with a big public display, but can’t get a permit from city hall, is there anything you can do to help? That’s all they write. They don’t try and go into the merits and demerits of law. They don’t try and persuade you to vote one way or another. The essence of the letter is: here is a problem I’m having, can you help me?
Your response is to… explain why you think the constituent was not denied the permit? Why you think the constituent doesn’t really want to express themselves with a public display? You see how that makes no sense in context.
Letters aren’t magic - I never claimed they were - but even if you can’t help this particular constituent, you are now on notice that the law you supported (not necessarily mentioned in the letter) is causing at least one tangible problem for at least this one constituent, which you can’t fix. And so I think the letter served its purpose, no matter which approach you take to representation.
What purpose is that? To tell me there’s a constituent I can’t help without changing my position? Ask me to try to circumvent a law I want in place? To show me that there are people who do want those displays?
I’m sorry, but what my constituent is asking for is unreasonable. We passed a law against religious displays for a reason. Just because said constituent sincerely wants to do a display does not invalidate the reason the law was enacted.
Now I can state that I’m unable to help with a permit because there’s a law against it. Or I can explain why I supported the law, discussing the ramifications of allowing one religion access. Or I can send a form letter that says thank you for alerting me to your issue. Have a nice day.
Which answer should I give?
In any case, I think we are agreeing that my policy and my vote have inconvenienced this one constituent but I have no intention of changing my position, nor do I wish to help get a permit for that display in that location.
If their intent was to try to shame me in some way, it failed because I’m not ashamed, I’m thrilled it served its purpose.
Now if I’m really a good representative, maybe I could inquire more details as to the nature of the desired display, and the motivation for that location. Maybe there is some way that I can help identify an acceptable substitute. Maybe they can have their display on the grounds of a nearby church, or they can post a message on a large billboard in the area. If I invest effort in an alternate solution, does that alleviate the concern I don’t work for my constituents?
You keep coming up with examples that are nothing like the original complaint.
But I still think the officeholder should reply with something that shows they noticed what the constituent’s letter was about; not something along the lines of “thank you for your comments” with no indication that they noticed what the comments are.
Of course it wouldn’t – which is why you recognize that the constituent does want to do so, and was denied the permit; and then point out that the public space would have to provide simultaneous displays to anyone of any other religion or none who wished to do so; their alternative is to provide none.
Or you could just say “the Supreme Court has determined that it’s unconstitutional for them to give you such a permit; and they’re obeying the law”, and leave it at that.
This. And the form letter is what pissed me off. It might have done so somewhat less if it had at least mentioned the specific issue. Which, again, had nothing to do with my wanting a personal favor, or being personally directly inconvenienced.
I don’t think that’s true. Or maybe to a degree that some might accept the existence more readily.
But it does not invalidate the feelings of those who are saying the EC was a mechanism to protect States’ Power, not citizens’ power. You might argue giving states power helps minority views get fair representation, but I don’t think that will float with most of us.
The other function of the EC, as has been argued on this board, was to provide the oligarchs a way to filter out populist or egalitarian candidates. It was elitist, from an elitist government that claimed to champion equality and representation, but defined away most people from that equality.
So it’s a failed filter to protect democracy from candidates of cult of personality and an antidemocratic agency to allow electors who aren’t directly chosen by the people to decide what the people wanted with their vote.
That is not true. It balances the power between States and the people. States with large population do get a LOT more EC votes than small states. It is just that very small states get a vote or two more than they would if it was purely based on population. It really isnt that far off.