On the contrary, it is traditionally considered inappropriate to contact Senators who do not represent you and it is unethical for them to respond in substance (in the House it is explicitly against House rules). We live in a representative democracy and power is distributed geographically through elected representatives. When you contact someone who does not represent you, you're sort of stepping outside the bounds of the democratic structure. You're also consuming resources that are apportioned to a legislative district that's not your legislative district.
> When you contact someone who does not represent you, you're sort of stepping outside the bounds of the democratic structure. You're also consuming resources that are apportioned to a legislative district that's not your legislative district.
That is no longer relevant when they step out of the bounds of representative politics and form special social groups that dictate the laws and behavior of offices that we have to deal with. You can't just have your cake and eat it too.
I appreciate you pointing this out and wish I heard it more. I hear so much talk of "democracy" but not many people talking of "representative democracy," which is how the US government is mostly structured (the occasional ballot issue).
I wonder if the internet and other tools that have reduced the costs of communication have been nudging many of us more towards wanting direct democracy, not representative democracy, without even realizing the shift or how it conflicts with the underlying structure of our government.
I'm curious, what are your thoughts related to how people see the government in terms of representative vs direct (or other forms of) democracy?
