4 ms·

Why do people think doing so is effective? Is there any evidence for that?

mcdonje 5y ago
It's far more effective than doing nothing. Reps keep track of constituent correspondences and tally them by sentiment. It's one of their main ways of gauging where their constituency is on issues. I guarantee boomers who type google searches into google's facebook page are calling up their reps.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  > It's far more effective than doing nothing. Is it though? I'd like to see the science on this.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > I'd like to see the science on this. Why would you need to? Only if you are saying no amount of voter contact has ever changed any politician's vote on absolutely anything. Is that what you're claiming? If not, then even a single letter changing a single vote by a single politician is already infinitely more than not doing anything, which won't even change a single vote by a single politician on anything. QED: No science needed. HTH!
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      I'm not making a claim, I'm asking why I should believe a claim. I see no reason to.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        Yeah, but unless you claim that no politician has ever been the least influenced by his constituency, there's no reason not to. Of bloody course writing your representative is better than not writing them: It stands at least a chance (however infinitesimal) of accomplishing something. Not doing it doesn't; by definition, it can't. That's a logical syllogism. Logical syllogisms don't need experimental confirmation. So how could and why would one not believe that doing something is, must be, better than doing nothing? That's not "healthy skepticism", it's turning it into illogical nonsense.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Of bloody course writing your representative is better than not writing them: It stands at least a chance (however infinitesimal) of accomplishing something. There is no guarantee that, if it accomplishes “something”, the change it induces will not have negative value. You cannot assess that the action has positive expected value without summing value across all possible outcomes weighted by probability, included negative value outcomes. The frequent naive assumption that doing something is always better than doing nothing is how proponents of lots of counterproductive policies use real problems as leverage to get them passed. Does alcohol produce real social harms? Was Prohibition doing something instead of nothing? Was Prohibition a net win?
        CRConrad 5y ago
        > There is no guarantee that, if it accomplishes “something”, the change it induces will not have negative value. So now you're arguing that constituents urging their politicians to do something is more likely to make them do the opposite? > Does alcohol produce real social harms? Yes. > Was Prohibition doing something instead of nothing? Yes. > Was Prohibition a net win? IMO, probably yes. (The negatives came from anti-Prohibition.)

It's far more effective than doing nothing. Reps keep track of constituent correspondences and tally them by sentiment. It's one of their main ways of gauging where their constituency is on issues. I guarantee boomers who type google searches into google's facebook page are calling up their reps.

guerrilla 5y ago
> It's far more effective than doing nothing. Is it though? I'd like to see the science on this.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > I'd like to see the science on this. Why would you need to? Only if you are saying no amount of voter contact has ever changed any politician's vote on absolutely anything. Is that what you're claiming? If not, then even a single letter changing a single vote by a single politician is already infinitely more than not doing anything, which won't even change a single vote by a single politician on anything. QED: No science needed. HTH!
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    I'm not making a claim, I'm asking why I should believe a claim. I see no reason to.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      Yeah, but unless you claim that no politician has ever been the least influenced by his constituency, there's no reason not to. Of bloody course writing your representative is better than not writing them: It stands at least a chance (however infinitesimal) of accomplishing something. Not doing it doesn't; by definition, it can't. That's a logical syllogism. Logical syllogisms don't need experimental confirmation. So how could and why would one not believe that doing something is, must be, better than doing nothing? That's not "healthy skepticism", it's turning it into illogical nonsense.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Of bloody course writing your representative is better than not writing them: It stands at least a chance (however infinitesimal) of accomplishing something. There is no guarantee that, if it accomplishes “something”, the change it induces will not have negative value. You cannot assess that the action has positive expected value without summing value across all possible outcomes weighted by probability, included negative value outcomes. The frequent naive assumption that doing something is always better than doing nothing is how proponents of lots of counterproductive policies use real problems as leverage to get them passed. Does alcohol produce real social harms? Was Prohibition doing something instead of nothing? Was Prohibition a net win?
        CRConrad 5y ago
        > There is no guarantee that, if it accomplishes “something”, the change it induces will not have negative value. So now you're arguing that constituents urging their politicians to do something is more likely to make them do the opposite? > Does alcohol produce real social harms? Yes. > Was Prohibition doing something instead of nothing? Yes. > Was Prohibition a net win? IMO, probably yes. (The negatives came from anti-Prohibition.)