Newracer,
I disagree with the premise that an elected official should he asking constituents how he/she should vote. Gathering input from constituents is certainly a good thing, but I don't want our elected policy makers to be 'human polling machines,' nor would I lower myself to such an unaccountable standard. The measure of democracy that we incorporate in our Representative Republic is to honor the will of the majority of voters in elections. From that point on, those who are elected to policy making positions (specifically to the legislative branch) must vote based on what he/she believes to be right - and for that which he/she is willing to be accountable. President Clinton exemplified a 'human polling machine' who adjusted his positions based on the will of the majority. For sure, he was very popular, but not an example of what I would consider a principled leader.
Again, gathering input - listening to constituents - is a good thing. However, the elected official must always be accountable for his/her votes and would never be justified in reminding his/her constituents that he/she voted a certain way because the majority of those who expressed an opinion wanted him/her to vote that way. Please consider that we do not benefit by mob rule even if there is a 'human polling machine' standing in the gap.
A former chief of staff for a US Senator once taught me a valuable lesson in effective advocacy. That is, when the elected does something right, go tell your sphere of influence. The reason is that we humans are SO very good at spreading the word about what we don't like, but we'll rarely lift a finger to praise someone when they do something right. We who are elected respond to the same two stimuli as did Pavlov's dog: pleasure and pain. You won't get very far by training a dog with only one of those stimuli, you need to use both appropriately. Likewise, constituents can work with effectively with their elected officials by using the same two tools.
To my point about asking, that's simply a better starting point than weighing in with 5, 10, or more reasons why I should vote a certain way on a given piece of legislation. Professional lobbyists ask first, then respond according to the answer. Constituents almost never do that, which is ineffective. If a legislator confirms that he/she is going to vote the way that you want him/her to vote, then "Thank you" might be more effective than explaining why they should do what they've already committed to do. In sales, people are taught, "When you close the deal, stop talking." Spreading word to your sphere of influence about the elected doing the right thing - public praise among likeminded citizens - is very pleasurable for an elected official... and guess what... he/she might remember that the next time the issue comes up.
If a legislator is uncertain or won't commit to how he/she will vote, then providing information, encouragement, and a firm promise to hold them accountable in the next election is certainly in order. A balance of the two stimuli would be in order and you might actually win over some of those folks.
Those who commit to vote against your desired position are where you would want to allocate the least amount of time, energy, and resources leading up to the vote. You MAY want to devote more time, energy, and resources to those folks in the next election, but frankly some are in such politically safe districts that you would be wise to ignore some and allocate resources where they can actually make a difference. Dudley Brown and RMGO are VERY GOOD at making such determinations. Those decisions are NOT subjective, but based on hard data. Frankly, I don't know anyone in the country who is better at making such determinations than Dudley... which is why some people passionately dislike like him. And yes, it requires money to hold people accountable in elections, which is why he (and all the other gun groups) are constantly asking for money.
Another reason why I encourage gunnies to start by asking is that every once in a while you'll find that the legislator actually knows his/her stuff when it comes to the Second Amendment and guns. Nobody needs to explain to me (and several others in the Colorado General Assembly) how the Second Amendment is our defense against tyranny. Several of us already understand that clearly. Want me to tear down, clean, and reassemble an AR or 45? No problem, I rather enjoy it.
Smile, not everyone is against you. :-)
- Chris
Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums
Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by RepHolbert
