U.S. Congress And Email

Carnage4Life writes "While browsing ZDNet I found this article that describes how U.S. members of congress receive so much email (about 55,000 a month) that they now routinely ignore email messages especially since a lot of them do not even come from their constituents. " Here's a similiar story where emails to our congressional representatives are referred to as spam. Although I'm sure mass-mailing reps is common, I wouldn't be at all surprised if 50,000 people emailed during the Napster hearings. But we've said it before, Reps don't understand bits and bytes. If you don't send them dead trees, they don't think you vote.

Comments

Email is much over-hyped

[vallee]

Whilst it's true that email is in some senses the "killer app" of the internet, it's also one of the most over-hyped, productivity destroying pieces of crap ever developed :) On the one hand it allows for free, nearly instantaneous conversation and information sharing with people anywhere in the world, but at the same time it allows those people to send each other "humourous" clips of cats doing martial arts and Americans going "Wazzzup!" at each other, clogging networks and stopping people from working.

The trouble is that because email just seems so convenient companies love it. If they don't have email, then they just aren't part of the modern business world in their view. But this isn't true. Despite the internet hype, everything necessary can be done over the phone or even by post, without ever touching a computer! And in many cases, the computer merely serves to waste time whilst appearing to be more efficient.

It's the same here. Despite email promising to let people get in touch with their congress people, in reality all it does is let so much stuff get there that it can't all be checked properly. It's just a waste of time, and people are far more likely to get their message across if they sit down with pen and a paper and write out a letter stating the issues at hand.

And besides, the quick and easy nature of email means it's a very sloppy method of communication. It lends itself to knee-jerk, flaming reponses and mails full of factual and grammatical errors, which all serve to make the user look bad. At least with a letter you have to take your time and consider what you're writing.

Email is great for letting the office know about the next progress meeting. But it's not really very good for getting someone's attention and making a point.

Re:Email is much over-hyped

[GoofyBoy]

>If they don't have email, then they just aren't part of the modern business world in their view. But this isn't true. Despite the internet hype, everything necessary can be done over the phone or even by post, without ever touching a computer!

But in some ways doing things by phone or post is even more inefficent than using email. Phone people up and they start chattering on and on about non-work related stuff. Do you know how much it costs in paper to send everyone the company newsletter?

I could do everything a business needs using smokesignals and carrier-pigeons, but would that be the best solution?

>the quick and easy nature of email means it's a very sloppy method of communication

I've heard this before and the same thing can be said for verbal communication. How do you think slang developed before email? Its not email which is "evil", its the way its used.

Re:Certified Mail !

[Col. Klink (retired)]

If you *really* want your congressman to get your message, save the money on the postage and instead give several thousands of dollars to his campaign manager. Only then can you be sure that he'll hear you.

Certified Mail !

[metacosm]

If you want to get a message to your congressman - send a certified letter. The only person who can sign for it is the congressman, and you can even ask for proof of receipt.
It costs $1.40 to send a letter by certified mail and an additional $1.25 for the sender to get a receipt back confirming delivery.
If you really care about a topic - show it by spending the $2.65 to make sure your message gets to your congressman.

Re:Certified Mail !

[edp]

"The only person who can sign for it is the congressman, ..."

Anybody can sign for a certified letter. For an additional fee, around $5, you can send it "restricted delivery." Then only the addressee or their registered agent can sign for it.

Of course, your representative is supposed to live in your district, and their address is public record. If you really want to be sure they get the message, go knock on their door.

Writing form letters is an art form.

[oneiros27]

From my days of dealing with a hundred or more email a day, you quickly learn just how important form letters are so that you can get back to your other work. When done right, however, it doesn't look like a form letter.

The first few times you receive something on a new topic, you actually respond to the person. Buy the third or fourth time, you're copying the bulk of the response from one of the earlier messages.

Once you've got a reply that you really like, you save it somewhere, so you can grab it when needed. The next time someone asks the question, you insert the text file. You trim out any bits that aren't relevant to their question [one of the sure signs of form letters], and you might tack in a sentance or two in there to make sure you highlight the answer to their question. [Eg, 'To explain why we're doing X, you really have to understand the whole process behind Y']

Once you're replied, you save their message to the appropriate bin, so that when you have to report to your boss later, you can state that 27 people complained today about A, 14 about B, and you received 42 copies of 'The Internet Spy'.

Come on now..

[Phizzy]

I think this is a little bit of an exagerration. I sent two emails to my representatives, one to my Congressman and one to a Senator from my state (NC), regarding the appointment of our favorite Attorney General and another regarding privacy concerns with a bill related to the Methamphetamine Proliferation Act, respectively, and received packets in the mail (snail) roughly a week later from both. The congressman sent me an explanation of why he voted against the AG, but was not in the majority (sadly), and the Senator sent me a letter explaning that the rider I was objecting to had been removed, as well as a report on the Meth bill, and another report on Privacy bills.

This largely depends on the representative, their staff, the issue you are referring to and your tone in the letter. I don't think it's appropriate to make broad generalizations like this with little evidence.. the reps are doing the best they can.

//Phizzy

It depends on your message

[slutdot]

I have found that by sending an e-mail that isn't obviously cut and pasted from some other source that my e-mails will get a response.

I recently wrote Senator Bob Graham of Florida regarding the Rangers' Black Beret and how the U.S. Army is screwing the Rangers by issuing the beret to every soldier. I wrote Senator Graham using my own words and not those of the Ranger Association. I was surprised to get the response that I got. It was a detailed description as to why the Rangers are losing their black beret with responses that addressed my concerns. I don't agree with Senator Graham's position but at least he wrote me back in something other than a form letter. I believe that since I used my own words, Senator Graham's staff didn't ignore the message.

Re:Certified Mail!

[commandant]

While certified mail with receipt is the only way to be sure somebody handled your mail, it is no guarantee the Congressman ever saw it, or that it was even read.

In America, anybody can sign anybody's signature as long as the person signing is doing so with the full knowledge and consent of the signature owner.

As Congressmen are quite busy, or would like you to think they are, it is almost certain that every Congressman has designated an signing agent.

Most likely, said agent simply runs the document through the signature machine, so that it is a perfect match... you won't be able to tell who signed for your mail.

I've always found the following two methods work perfectly for getting your Congressman's attention:

1. Send a courier who refuses to leave the Congressman's office until the Congressman himself has received and read your letter, and then crafted a response.
2. In a similar vein, go to your neighborhood mob hangout and get some knee-breakers to act as the courier in number 1.

A new year calls for a new signature.

Cool!

[atrowe]

If you replace "US Congress Representatives" with "CmdrTaco", the article still makes sense.

Try it yourself!

Why email is ignored

[Auckerman]

E-mail is not as "real" as snail mail. What looks more impressive, 50 thousand emails or 50 thousand letters? The emails can be ignored and never downloaded, the snail mail just filled up your office and part of the hall way. The letters are gonna get your attention because if you dont do something about it, you won't be able to get in your office.

Email is an annoyance, snail mail is a reality.

Just follow the rules

[CyberDawg]

The facts (at least, I'm assuming them to be facts) and statistics in the article are saddening. There is, however, still a way to get your message through.

First, follow the rules they set. If you're writing about a specific issue, make the subject line of the message reflect the issue and your position. As an example, "Please vote NO on AB12345." Most emails, like most snail mails and faxes, are just used to tally support for a position. This means, of course, that the carefully thought-out and worded contents of your email will probably never be seen.

Second, identify yourself properly. Members of the House, for example, are elected to represent only members of their own district, and if you don't show a snail mail address in their district, they're not going to pay attention to your email.

Third, ask for action in a separate email. Not the one with the short, sweet "No on AB12345" header. Like I said, they probably didn't read it. Send an email asking for information or asking for some specific document (again, make the header clear and identify yourself). Staffers will deal with those, and if you phrase your message well, you can get across a point along with your request. If you phrase it extremely well, the staffer will pass it on to the boss.

There's no question, though, that emails get lower priority than phone calls, faxes, or snail mail. I don't like it, and I don't agree with it, but when the subject matters, I do my best to go around it.

Don't understand?

[BillyGoatThree]

Or understand all too well?

Let's see a show of hands of all those that have emailed a congressperson via webpage touting some issue. (Probable answer: 60%)

Now let's see a show of hands of those that have emailed a congressperson "manually". (Probable answer: 30%)

Now let's see a show of hands of those that have snailmailed a congressperson. (Probable answer: 2%)

Now let's see a show of hands of those that have personally spoken with a congressperson. (Probable answer: .0001%)

Not all forms of communication require an equal amount of investment by the communcator--therefore they should get unequal amounts of attention from the communicatee.

If you want your opinion read, just write it down (or print it out)--it only costs $.33 to send.

Addenda: Not all congresspeople are deleting all mail. I emailed my reps recently and got a physical (admittedly form-) letter back from one of them.
--