[MLUG - DISCUSSION] Between elections (was Re: [MLUG] Decentralizing the internet)

[Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

[I've switched this to discussion]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Mikhail Kovalenko wrote:

> "(8?>" wrote:
>
> > Concerning a previous post about writing congress, I would propose an
> > alternative, which is trying to educate everyone you think capable of
> > comprehending it (which is directly correlated to our ability to
> > communicate, BTW). Only public outrage will stop this, but the public will
> > not be informed, as the players in this game own the media.
>
> Public education can only have effect on who is elected to represent the
> public, which is irrelevant in between elections.

Not really true.  You have to remember that in the US these days, the
election cycle never really ends.  People are trying to raise money all
the time (since they basically have to to be competitive), and they
therefore have to "fine-tune" their messages on a regular basis.
Sometimes fine-tuning involves 180 degree turns. :-)

So, for example, the so-called anti-terrorism bill is now rather different
than it was in the first days following the terrorist attacks, and that is
because a lot of people complained (or asked about) some of its more
ridiculous provisions.  I mean, it wasn't because there was a huge outcry
from industry, or a change of heart in the Justice Department...

> Besides, during elections, how many people actually care to see the
> whole range of opinions that their candidate is bringing to the table?
> Most settle for just a couple of issues they feel comfortable with.

But, silly though it sounds, that isn't by any means the worst heuristic.
Voting patterns on most issues are rather highly correlated with voting on
a handful of issues, which (not too surprisingly) are ones that get a lot
of press.  There are some exceptions, like views on abortion that are
sometimes "splinters" from the generic voting profile, but not as
frequently (I don't believe) as used to be the case.

> The Congressmen are those who vote on such issues, and *their*
> education is far more important. See the last line in the quote below:

Actually, perhaps most important of all is the education of congressional
staffers.  Congress votes on hundreds of bills every session, and it is
vastly unrealistic to assume that your senator/rep is really up to date on
(or has even read most of) the bills that come up.  The two other primary
sources of information on most bills are the sentiments of your party's
leadership (assembled in no small part by congressional staffers), and
reports (including voter feedback) from staffers from individual
senators/reps.  Leadership, in turn, is influenced a great deal by
feedback they get about how the vote on a bill would "play" (gag) in the
next election, which they get from polling, guesswork, and feedback from
individual politicians who have informed opinions or informed staffs.

Now, the very best way to make your voice heard to a politician is to be
one of those insanely dedicated people who is on record as having voted in
each and every election that comes up.  Obviously, they are a good bet to
vote again (and they remember issues), but less obviously, they have an
impressively large amount of influence on friends and family.  So even if
many individual voters don't have any clue about what happened on a given
bill, the so-called "super-voter" might, and will be a primary source of
information on everybody he or she knows.

jking


--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/