2
“The communication that Sen. Gramm values most certainly does not arrive by
wire. It is the one where someone sat down at a kitchen table, got a sheet of lined
paper and a No. 2 pencil, and poured their heart into a letter.”
The advent of the Internet and the use of e-mail were once heralded as a
revolution in constituent communication with elected representatives (Grossman 1995).
Making the Internet a priority when he became Speaker of the House in 1995, Newt
Gingrich promised to place “every amendment, every conference report” on-line and
accessible to all (Congressional Record 1995). In fact, Gingrich, like many others,
thought that computers and the Internet would transform politics, producing a new
plebiscitary democracy that would move America from a representative to a direct
democracy (Hill & Hughes 1998). Congress’ movement towards creating an electronic
democracy—not only by providing information to constituents through Web sites such
as Thomas—but also by giving every member of Congress an e-mail address to contact
one another and their constituents, portended the opportunity to make it easier for citizens
to communicate their views to their representatives, thereby facilitating a more open and
responsive government.
On the state level, the Internet, e-government, and the implementation of new
information technologies were also supposed to revolutionize the way state governments
operate. Putting state governments on-line was designed to enhance public access to
information while also opening up new ways for citizens and elected officials to
communicate.
Much has been made of how e-mail would reinvigorate democracy and increase
constituent communications. After all, a quick e-mail and zap—an instant message is
Convention