Letter to Rob Bishop

I recently sent an email to United States Congressman Rob Bishop, representing Utah’s 1st congressional district. The subject of the message was illegal immigration. I hope you’ll find what I wrote reasonable, even if you don’t agree.

We can’t catch all speeders, but we haven’t stopped ticketing the ones we can. We can’t solve all crimes, but we still have police out there trying to catch criminals. Why then do so many of our federal politicians throw their hands in the air and just give up on the enforcement of immigration law, specifically the deportation of people in the country illegally?

If we assume for a moment that those people are right, we can’t send all illegal immigrants home, why can’t we also make a determination that we will enforce the law to the best of our ability? How difficult is it to put 55 people on a bus and send them back where they came from? If we can do that, why not two buses? If that, why not four, or eight, or sixteen? So we can’t send back every offender; let’s send back the ones we can.

We can stop cars at interstate border crossings to ensure ag products aren’t smuggled in that might result in economic ruin to a region. Why can’t we ensure people seeking government benefits are in the country legally (either a citizen or on a visa)? So many of our government institutions have policies that they won’t confirm eligibility for benefits or that employees can’t act on knowledge of illegal immigrants.

I’d really like to know exactly where you stand on this issue and if you would sponsor or support legislation to amend where necessary and require enforcement of our immigration laws.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Scott Dale Robison

I sent this email on August 27, and within 15 minutes of clicking send, I had received an automated response:

from Congressman Rob Bishop
date Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:40 PM
subject Thanks for writing

I appreciate you contacting my office. Your opinion is important to me and I will respond directly to your concerns as soon as possible.

Today when I checked my mailbox (not my email, but my actual physical United States Postal Service snail mailbox) I had received a response from Congressman Bishop’s office! How exciting! Allow me to share with you the first little bit of it, okay?

September 9, 2009

Dear Scott:

Thank you for your letter regarding universal health coverage. …

What the <expletive deleted>?!? In no way shape or form was my message about universal health coverage! Imagine, a politician that doesn’t listen to what you have to say. What are the odds?

I realize that our congressmen are very busy people, and they don’t personally read every piece of correspondence that crosses their desks. I realize my email was quickly glanced at (if that) by some staffer whose job it is to organize correspondence into categories for form letter responses. I realize in that sort of environment, mistakes will be made.

All that being said, I’d like to offer my services to the Congress of the United States. It seems to me that rather than having staffers reading messages and putting them in the wrong response pile, it would be much more efficient, at least for the messages which are delivered via email, to have a computer program classify them. It has the potential to be far more efficient and cost effective for the American people, and even if it incorrectly classifies a message, how is that any worse than what just happened to me, and has happened to countless others?

We are tired of not being listened to. This is not about Republicans, it’s not about Democrats, it’s about the status quo. Something must change, and it must change soon. Here are some suggestions:

  1. We need a mandate that political parties do not have access to the ballot. By this I mean that people are free to join political parties, and parties are welcome to nominate and support candidates, but at no point should a person’s party affiliation appear on the ballot. We are electing candidates to office, not political parties.
  2. In like fashion, there should be no option on any ballot for a straight ticket vote for all candidates of a single party. A voter should know who they are voting for before entering the voting booth, or at least know the candidates and their stance on issues. Why should those of us who cast considered votes for any candidate have our votes diluted by others that don’t think about what or who they are voting for?
  3. A different apportionment of electoral votes to cut down on the winner take all system that focuses so much attention on swing states with relatively large electoral vote counts. If we had a system that awarded one elector for each congressional district won, plus two for the state at large vote, the system would be considered more reasonable by many who currently are calling for it to be abolished. Note: I realize the presidential election is actually a vote for electors, and those are state by state votes, so a change like this mandating how electors are to be apportioned would require an amendment.
  4. While we’re at it, we all need to focus less on the president. The real power lies with the legislative branch through which all legislation flows. The president certainly has a lot of influence, but he gets too much blame when things go wrong and too much credit when things go right.
  5. Term limits of some sort, though I’m somewhat fuzzier on this concept. I was thinking of perhaps a single term limit for any office, followed by at least one term out of that office. Professional politicians are going to be the ruination of this country. Well, professional politicians and an electorate that is always looking to feed at the government trough.

This is by no means a comprehensive list of reforms we should implement. Just a few things off the top of my head.

I have nothing personal against Rob Bishop. I think he’s an okay guy, and I don’t have any huge policy complaints with him. What I am is tired. I’m tired of not being heard. This last weekends rally in Washington shows that I am not alone. It is something all politicians need to think about.

Note: When I have a chance, I’ll have the letter scanned and post a copy of it. Hopefully I can do that tomorrow.

8 Comments

  1. 1
    Janet says:

    Great letter, Scott. And such a typical response. I wrote to Orrin Hatch a couple of years ago and received a similar canned response that had NOTHING to do with my topic other than both my and his email contained the word “computer”. I’m certain that, if you’ll just look closely at the Congressman’s response you’ll find several matching words. For example, in the small portion you have shared, I found that both letters contain the word “you”.

  2. 2
    Scott says:

    I’m having the letter I received scanned so I can post it later today. <knock on wood> But to respond to your point, his response did include a word derived from immigrant, as did my message.

  3. 3
    David says:

    Wow Scott, that is quite the list of suggestions. I had not thought about the party affiliation being listed on the ballot, but that’s a good suggestion. I strongly favor removing the straight party option on ballots and I agree that we need to focus more on reforming the legislative branch (through our votes) than the executive branch. I have previously advocated for removing the winner-take-all approach to the way state delegations cast their votes in the Electoral college although the best solution eludes me. (For example how should the votes be apportioned from Utah if 40% of voters vote for the Democratic candidate for president, but the Republican candidate wins more than 50% of the vote in each congressional district?) On term limits I also agree that they would vastly benefit the nation – I don’t think I would do one term and then a one term break, right now I would favor a limit of five terms in Congress (with a six year break before running again) and two consecutive terms in the Senate with a lifetime maximum of three full Senate terms.

  4. 4
    Scott says:

    Thanks for the comments David. How’d you find my little piece of the blogosphere? I almost feel dirty typing “blogosphere”…

    Given that the citizens of the United States cast votes for electors, having a separate vote in each congressional district for a single elector seems the most fair way of handling it. A state wide vote would handle the two at large electors. If we wanted to be really ‘fair’ we could allow the at large vote to be split between electors pledged to different candidates on a single ballot. More practically, one would mark a single option like “Electors pledged to <fill in the blank>” and be done with it.

    We could handle the case of the 60/40 split by apportioning the total state electors based on percentage of vote won, with any fractional electors left going to the popular vote winner. My first preference is a district by district model, followed by elector apportionment, followed by the current system, followed by a purely democratic vote.

    I would also like to see a majority vote be required to win, implemented through some system of instant runoff voting. Simple plurality vote resulted in a candidate winning three of the last five presidential elections without a majority of the popular vote. While that would still be possible even if a majority vote was required on a per elector basis, it would be far less likely, and we’d have a closer match between the outcome of the popular vote and the Electoral College.

    Keeping the Electoral College maintains the benefits that the system affords (this comment is too long already to go into those benefits), while avoiding the downside of a purely democratic process. Not that the Electoral College is perfect, but I find it preferable to straight democracy.

  5. 5
    David says:

    If you don’t prefer straight democracy over the Electoral College system why must the electoral college closely match the popular vote? I’m not saying that the EC should blatantly ignore the popular vote, but I see no reason to tie them any closer than they are – other than the fact that I would prefer to do away with states block voting in the EC to increase their individual influence in the outcome.

  6. 6
    Scott says:

    I think that it is preferable in most cases for the EC to be relatively in sync with the popular vote to avoid the appearance of impropriety, if you will. While we aren’t a democracy, we are a representative republic that utilizes democratic principles. It is a sad statement that many people just don’t get the EC, and if the outcome doesn’t match their expectations they get up in arms without trying to understand the process or why the founding fathers found it preferable to direct democracy.

    Another change I’d like to see: abandon the direct election of senators. We already have representatives that we get to elect. The senators were to be ‘above’ pandering for votes, serving to ensure that their state’s best interests were being served.

    Another ‘change’ I’d like to see: recognition of and compliance with the 10th amendment.

  7. 7
    David says:

    Well, you’ve stumbled into a topic that I wrote about this morning – http://www.pursuit-of-liberty.com/2009/future-amendment-restore-federalism/ – as well as previously.

  8. 8
    Scott says:

    That was probably fresh on my mind because I subconsciously remembered reading it on your site earlier today. Good post (and double so for the previous post you linked to).

    The founding fathers were obviously not perfect, nor is the government they setup. That being said, amending the constitution is not something that should be done hastily, as you pointed out. I wish more people thought like you. On this subject, at least. :)

1 Trackbacks

Leave a comment