3
sent off to an elected official who would quickly respond. Yet the reality soon emerged
that this would not be the case. For example, one 1997 survey (Davis et al.) of
congressional use of e-mail within just a few years of its inauguration suggested that this
form of communication had its pluses and minuses. In this survey members of Congress
noted a deluge of e-mail, ranging from 175-300 messages per week, with the volume of
e-mail increasing each year (11). Congressional offices, even then before the advent of
the recent Spam epidemic, indicated that they were flooded with non-constituent e-mail.
In describing office procedures to process it, members of Congress stated that much of
the e-mail came without addresses, or that the senders expected immediate replies and
expressed anger when this did not occur. Moreover, only 27% indicted that they
personally used the Internet, instead leaving it to staffers to read and respond to e-mails
(13). Overall, the survey suggested that Congress was adjusting to e-mail as a new form
of communication, gradually developing office procedures that treated it similarly to
other types of constituent contact (12-14).
Since this early study, the use of e-mail has expanded both in and beyond
Congress to the states. However little is known about how constituents use e-mail to
contact their state and local officials and, more importantly, what impact this new form of
communication has had. Has it, for example, brought new constituents into contact with
government and thereby expanded the participatory base, or it is merely one tool among
others for traditionally active citizens to contact their representatives? Second, has e-mail
supplanted or merely supplemented other forms of communication? Third, when
compared to more traditional forms of constituent communications—such as office visits
or letters, or even telephone calls or faxes—is e-mail an effective way to contact one’s
Convention