3 ms·

Mike Lee's office always responds to me, but I've yet to get a response that says anything other than "I disagree with you."

williamscales 5y ago
lol that's absurd, it's not his job to disagree with you. his job is to listen to you and represent you.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  He obviously cannot agree with everyone. He has his point of view, sold that to a majority of voters, who elected him. I'd rather hear that my representative disagrees with me than receive some BS noncommital answer that dodges the issue or tries to straddle both sides of an issue.
  - nickff 5y ago
    The fact that the representative's office clearly says it disagrees is great! It means they understand constituents' positions well enough to know whether they are representing their electorate. The bland, nothing replies are a sign that they're not even bothering to register your opinion.
- xoa 5y ago
  No, he can absolutely disagree when it comes to political questions. That's literally what they're elected on and the point of indirect democracy is to have dedicated people who can exercise their own judgement using their expertise and resources alongside reacting to constituent concerns. And constituent concerns are not in fact always valid for that matter. Or one set of constituent priorities may conflict with another set. Balancing that kind of thing is a political question. An honest rep's office should certainly take some time to respond to an actual letter and if they don't agree or just plain can't do something give a brief reason as to why (fresh for a new issue raised, could be canned if it's a frequent question but should still represent updated reasoning). But doing so is not wrong. If enough constituents disagree with that, the remedy is to vote that rep out (which would hopefully be easier for outrageous cases like this which do not fall along any typical partisan lines).
chaxor 5y ago
I wonder how large the democratic deficit would be if the response from any given representative across the country read something a little more like this: "We [insert office] are excited by your interest and have taken your stance into our records. While [office] must remain entirely impartial, we can inform you that, unfortunately, as of now our records indicate that your stance is only shared by a minority (45%) of the vote suggestions and support letters we have received. If you feel strongly and wish to alter [office's] actions towards this, please continue your support by gaining interest in your community." Perhaps people participate more under this different system.

williamscales 5y ago

lol that's absurd, it's not his job to disagree with you. his job is to listen to you and represent you.

throwawayboise 5y ago
He obviously cannot agree with everyone. He has his point of view, sold that to a majority of voters, who elected him. I'd rather hear that my representative disagrees with me than receive some BS noncommital answer that dodges the issue or tries to straddle both sides of an issue.
- nickff 5y ago
  The fact that the representative's office clearly says it disagrees is great! It means they understand constituents' positions well enough to know whether they are representing their electorate. The bland, nothing replies are a sign that they're not even bothering to register your opinion.
xoa 5y ago
No, he can absolutely disagree when it comes to political questions. That's literally what they're elected on and the point of indirect democracy is to have dedicated people who can exercise their own judgement using their expertise and resources alongside reacting to constituent concerns. And constituent concerns are not in fact always valid for that matter. Or one set of constituent priorities may conflict with another set. Balancing that kind of thing is a political question. An honest rep's office should certainly take some time to respond to an actual letter and if they don't agree or just plain can't do something give a brief reason as to why (fresh for a new issue raised, could be canned if it's a frequent question but should still represent updated reasoning). But doing so is not wrong. If enough constituents disagree with that, the remedy is to vote that rep out (which would hopefully be easier for outrageous cases like this which do not fall along any typical partisan lines).

chaxor 5y ago

I wonder how large the democratic deficit would be if the response from any given representative across the country read something a little more like this: "We [insert office] are excited by your interest and have taken your stance into our records. While [office] must remain entirely impartial, we can inform you that, unfortunately, as of now our records indicate that your stance is only shared by a minority (45%) of the vote suggestions and support letters we have received. If you feel strongly and wish to alter [office's] actions towards this, please continue your support by gaining interest in your community." Perhaps people participate more under this different system.