Ask Slashdot: How Can I Get Through To a Politician By E-mail?

wytcld writes "Sending an individually-written e-mail to my state senator resulted in an automated response saying that since she receives hundreds of e-mails a day, there might be no personal response, but please don't take that to mean she hasn't read my e-mail. So I contacted her again suggesting that was a pretty poor answer. Most of the e-mails she receives are mass mailings coordinated by various interest group websites. Why doesn't she put those to the side, I asked, and prioritize response to individual e-mails from constituents who've taken the time to actually write? Her response? She often can't tell the difference at first, so spends time drafting responses to the first instances of group e-mail spam, and gets diverted from responding to those who really write her. Are there tools out there which a politician can use to identify the incoming group-think blasts and put them to to side? It's easy enough to imagine sorting by repeated content or headers, if I ran the mail server, but I'm looking for packages already out there that a state-level representative, with no staff to speak of, might use to cut through the mess and prioritize communication with constituents who care enough about an issue to draft their own thoughts."

Comments

Paper and Pen

[Anonymous Coward]

These two devices solve literally every problem you are trying to solve.

Re:Paper and Pen

[icebike]

Exactly.

The story writer starts with the naive assumption the the representative reads ANY email, that isn't first scanned and categorized by a couple layers of minions. Then moves to the assumption that there is some trick that will get his topic before the representative's eyeballs bypassing all the layers.

Totally lost on the OP is the idea that their "special issue" is no more important than those from any other constituent, and the best they have a right to is having their missive filed and counted in the appropriate pro/con pile regarding any issue.

Maybe a succinct email speaking to a specific piece of legislation referencing (and quoting) detailed points in a calm analytical way gets picked out by a staffer as particularly instructive and gets passed to the rep.

Any rambling rants get nowhere.

Any threats will get attention, but not the kind you want.

But the "fer it"/"agin it" letters get counted and are automated replies, not necessarily in that order. They've had their say. And that's all they deserve.

Any foolproof way of getting thru the layer of flak catchers wouldn't survive being public knowledge for very long. Why should any one persons view take precedence over the that of other constituents?

Re:Paper and Pen

[Tokah]

One of my state's senators states on his website that his pen 'n paper mail doesn't reach him for over six weeks because of security concerns. That's often after the vote on whatever you are trying to bother your congress person about.

Getting your email noticed

[93 Escort Wagon]

There are a few simple steps you can take to guarantee your email will stand out above the background noise...

1) Greet her by her full name - if you can do the research to find some endearing nickname only used by her friends, so much the better!

2) Mention the names of her husband and kids - show you're not like the other constituents. YOU take the time to get to know her!

3) Include photo attachments of her house (both in Washington and in your home state), her car, and her husband's car - again, this shows you care about this communication enough to put some time into learning more about her!

4) Describe, specifically and in the strongest terms possible, the issue you care about - getting to know her is nice, but don't let your message get lost in all the friendly banter!

5) In closing, be friendly! Mention that she or her family might run into you sometime!

6) (optional) If you can get hold of her personal cell phone number, follow up a few times with friendly phone calls! Script them, though - be sure to follow the steps I've listed above. But remember, she's a busy person; so call when she's more likely to be free - late at night is best.

Re:Forget it

[dwye]

This is one area where the spammer scum have ruined email.

Actually, this was ruined for email before there even WAS email. Robert Heinlein wrote a short book on how to influence politicians, and he laid out all the steps. Basically, the less you care, the less they care, so in the "good old days" a telegram beat a hand-written note, which beat a typed note; signing a petition or sending a pre-written message just makes the signer feel good, but these are completely ignored. An email is almost identical to the pre-written message that some group wants everyone to sign and send in; at best it is the typed message, except that you haven't bothered to expend your precious toner on it.

Secondly, if you belong to an ORGANIZED group, mention it. Even better if you are an officer of it, and mention that. Even a Ladies Sewing Circle member beats the lone crank; the member can convince her group to vote her way, while the lone writer cannot convince anyone.

Seriously, people, this stuff is obvious if you think about it.

Re:Send them a $2,300 reelection donation

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians respond to their constituents.

Please note "constituent" rarely equals "citizen" or "voter" in that politician's district.

True story: Shortly before this country was misled into a disastrous, expensive, deadly, and illegal adventurism, I called the local office of my US Representative. A human-like organism answered the phone and quietly operated the device after asking a few questions to identify me. I gave several reasons why my country should not engage in the seemingly inevitable but completely optional upcoming disaster. When I finished talking, it thanked me.

Shortly, I received a form letter
a) thanking me for expressing my opinion,
b) excusing the politician from giving a personal response because he receives so very many letters and calls,
c) acknowledging that many people have strong opinions about war,
d) explaining, in high political speak, that he didn't give a shit about what the little people thought and was proud to stand with his President.