I know for a fact that many offices explicitly log responses received from constituents based on phone calls/letters they receive. If the phone is ringing off the hook or the office gets inundated with letters, this will undoubtedly make one of the more senior staffers take notice and he should report it up the chain of command.

Obviously its all relative but if enough letters/phone calls get placed, the message will be received.

Furthermore, the co-sponsers on both the House and Senate bills are bi-partisan in nature so this is an issue that is obviously not as black and white as your typical party lines type vote. Hopefully this might cause legislators to take a serious look at the issues being raised and actually give some attention to popular opinion if in fact enough people like us make a fuss.

Yup, everything I've ever heard through the grapevine is that congressmen will notice if they suddenly receive a big volume of calls about something.

If only calls were recorded and letters were scanned. Analyzing the trends seems like pretty powerful data for a congressman.

Then again, you could say that the congressman shouldn't need a computer to understand the people he represents.

They wouldn't if they only represented the number of people they were supposed to when the constitution was written (house members that is).

However we capped it at 435, so each congressman represents far more people than he is supposed to. I say technology has reached the point where we should remove the cap have thousands of representatives.

We used to expand the number of lawmakers as the nation grew.

We should have three times as many members of Congress to get back to the representation levels of 1900.

You've got a pretty good pattern-matcher between your ears. Staffers have them too, they can note "hey we got a bunch of calls about this issue" at the end of the day.

You are mistaken if you think that 18 and 19 year olds taking phone calls as interns are in any way an effective means of conveying information to those in charge. Sure, they can note trends. Do they? No. The primary concern was which lobbyist reception with free alcohol everyone was going to at the end of the day. And although many of them may have a good grasp on a lot of issues, some like SOPA may be lost on them. Not to mention the more fringe issues. What if 60% of your constituents call in favor of an issue and for 40% against it.. How does that get relayed effectively?

I've never worked as a staffer but from what I've heard, if there was unusual volume on something it usually got escalated. If it's bumps in the noise, yeah, no big deal.

Thank you for taking the time and effort to write this. It's rare for us to get a glimpse into "how things actually work".

I believe your account, but it may not be as bad as this in all districts. Consider this report and the reply from someone who worked in a district office (from Reddit): http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/lxrpk/so_i_email...

"Congressmen win based on grassroots and know where their bread is buttered. You have so much more power than you think you do, if you're one of the (very) few who are willing to step up and fight for your beliefs."

I've heard similar things from a friend of mine who worked for a large non-profit that organized large, successful campaigns. His contention was that the vast majority of people are totally disengaged from politics, so anyone who actually speaks up is likely to be an influencer.

Yeah, that sounds pretty accurate as to how things work in the OP. As he and some others mention, if you say that you are with the "press" or "organization X" you are much more likely to get to talk to someone who has direct involvement with the congressman i.e. an LA (legislative assistant) or even chief of staff although he's about as scarce as the congressman at least in my instance. It's unfortunate though that you have to lie to order to get your personal opinion conveyed. I agree that we should have more congresspeople or at least a way to better account for everyone's point of view.

What do you think of PlainSite?

http://www.plainsite.org

It's not done yet but we're working on it.

Do you think a site like this is even theoretically capable of catching the attention of people in Washington?

There are several things that come into play here. First off, the majority of politicians I have met (Governors, Senators, Congressmen and former VP Big Dick Cheney) are the old white male types with social tendencies and aren't very technologically oriented (This is a generalized statement, I know - it doesn't apply in all situations.) That is how you become a politician: become a likeable figure with some sense. I have a feeling that the majority of their opinions are based not on their own research/knowledge but rather that of their legislative assisants. We had 6 or 7 of them and they were all smart people finishing law degrees and trying to work their way up in Washington. They do the research. They DO NOT care about the news or "second hand" informational sources as they put it (unless it's negative press). So I guess my point is, know who you are trying to reach.

Your idea is solid. But you are going to have to gain a critical mass and become the go-to place for expressing your opinion on politics. If you can do that I have a suggestion for you: Make it so you can sign in or browse by district. Make it so that the legislative assistants can go to their specific districts' thoughts and opinions within the website. This is much more important than getting viewpoint of the nation as a whole. Good Luck.

I have, however, had good luck replying to form letters with point-by-point responses citing sources. I suspect that is highly annoying to form-letter pushers.

What about if people express their commitment to actions, e.g., boycotts, etc., if SOPA goes ahead. I created a simple site where people can just send one-liner email to register their commitment to action. Kindly see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3243052.

Wallawe: Do you think this on-line petition system is useful? Instead of going through a congressman, one could go through the White House?

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/how-why/terms-partic...

This wasn't addressed to me but I thought I'd comment.

The We The People petitions, I believe, are there to make the people believe they are making an impact in policy by signing one. Most, if not every, response from the White House has been a generic, basically meaningless response from an unknown staffer.

Case in point: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/we-demand-v...

Notice how this petition has been signed by more people than most of the others...

I think it is probably more useful and would get more attention than an individual letter or phone call to your congressman.

I'm cynical on government too but don't you think that if enough people contact them somehow and theres a clear majority view that somehow the official get the message and that sways them just a bit? Am I still being too naive or is it really truly nothing but money money money that gets them to do anything?

You are correct. I worked for a conservative congressman and he knew his constituents and what they wanted for the most part. It's not hard if your state leans hard to either side of the spectrum. And in his defense, if he took every call and letter into account, he would never have time to do anything else. But at the same time, what about those that have a differing opinion from the majority and have a good point to be made? Shouldn't everyone's opinion be heard? And what about states whose constituents are closer to the center? It's a difficult situation to say the least.