>Technological competence is a prerequisite for exercising sound judgment in the best interests of this particular constituent. Then vote accordingly. Other p

>Technological competence is a prerequisite for exercising sound judgment in the best interests of this particular constituent. Then vote accordingly. Other people have different priorities. More importantly, this misses my point about legislators relying on expert staffers to inform their decisions. The staffers bring the subject knowledge, the legislators bring judgement and knowledge of their constituencies. >why can't we elect separate representatives for separate tasks? Where do you draw the lines? One man's technology issue is another man's economic issue, is another man's foreign policy issue. >Technology policy seems to take a back seat to big copyright since the vast majority of people don't realize how widespread the effects of bad tech policy can be. I could easily replace "technology" and "copyright" with several other pairs of nouns and the sentence would remain just as true. In many cases, you and I would be among the ignorant majority. Having dedicated-subject legislators would not make things any better because those dedicated-subject legislators would still be elected by that same "vast majority of people [who] don't realize how widespread the effects of bad...policy can be." There is no guarantee that subject-specific legislators would be the true experts in their fields, or even that they would be loyal to the best interests of the public. Powerful special interests will still spend wheelbarrows full of money to convince otherwise ignorant people to vote in a certain way, and breaking up legislative responsibilities by subject won't change that. Probably the best way to get better tech policy is to support public-awareness efforts in regards to important technology issues. If you can get enough people to see things your way, legislators will start to be affected.