During the last presidential election cycle, I heard a lot about the effectiveness of using technology, specifically the Internet and email, to communicate with constituencies. It seems to me that anyone with any critical thinking skills would see that contention as nonsense. I say that because communication is a two-way street, and what the political class is doing with technology is about as one-way as you can get.
No doubt, sending an email to your elected representative is very easy, much more so than an actual letter. Because of homeland security precautions, if you write a letter to your senator or congressman, it may take two weeks or more to deliver it, since it has to be screened to make sure it doesn’t contain something toxic. And as we’ve seen, if you were to write a letter to provide feedback about an issue before congress, if it takes the lawmaker in question two weeks or more to read it, the opportunity to influence the congressional vote will have been long since lost. These days, deliberation on an issue before congress lasts slightly less than a New York minute, so a two-week time lag just won’t do.
With email, on the other hand, you can sit down in front of your computer and with the touch of a button, your sentiments are winging their way to the appropriate lawmaker at the speed of light. Well, not quite.
I don’t know if you’ve sent any emails to your senators or congressmen lately, but I have, and my experience goes something like this:
I compose a message to one of my senators that is specific, to the point, and brief, and send it off. I don’t waste words, and I don’t mince words. I might use phrases such as “socialist abyss,” or “utter destruction of the U.S. economy.” In any case, the senator would have no doubt about the point of my message, or the depth of my concern about what she’s doing in congress.
My message is quickly on its way, but her response suggests that she almost certainly didn’t read it, to wit:

“Dear (recipient):
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns.  I appreciate having the benefit of your views.
The views of Washingtonians are very important to my work. I will keep your thoughts in mind, and I encourage you to stay in touch. Please do not hesitate to call on me whenever I may be of assistance.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope that you will continue to let me know about this and other matters of interest to you.
I hope all is well in (name of city from which email was sent).”

Clearly, what I’ve received is a response not from the senator, but from the senator’s software. The senator knows perfectly well that all is not well in the city from which the email was sent, or should know it, because I told her so explicitly. For the same reason, she should know that I attribute that, at least in some measure, to her “work.” How I would go about calling on her personally for assistance, I don’t know, but I’m fairly certain it’s not by email.
All I’ve succeeded in doing by using email to “communicate” with her is getting myself marginalized, and, as it turns out, getting my email address added to her database. I’ve started receiving regular updates about her “work” in congress, and, no doubt, when she’s up for re-election, she’ll be asking me for money.
I hope she’s not too disappointed when I respond to her request with a version of her response to my concerns about her “work.” Maybe something like:
“Thank you for contacting me for a contribution to your campaign. I appreciate the opportunity to be involved in such a momentous effort. I will keep your request in mind. Again, thank you for contacting me. If the check doesn’t arrive in your mail, you’ll know it’s from me.” -RB