21
messages from unknown senders. In addition, the tendency of e-mail messages to be more
informal, brief, or seemingly impersonal than other forms of communication generates the
potential for misinterpretation by e-mail recipients. This can work to the disadvantage of both
public officials and citizens who try to initiate political communication by e-mail. On the other
hand, e-mail may serve as a highly convenient, efficient, and inexpensive way to communicate
once a relationship has already been established. For example, once channels of communication
have been opened by in-person meetings or telephone conversations, e-mail may be a good way
to maintain contact.
One of the reasons for the relative lack of respect accorded to e-mail is the high volume
of vague, frivolous, and “junk” messages that are transmitted via e-mail. No one appreciates
“spam,” and both political officials and citizens need to be cautious in order to avoid being
perceived as “spammers.” Public officials must limit “broadcast” messages to recipients who
have clearly opted to receive messages, for example by signing up on the official’s web page to
receive news and announcements. Citizens should be aware that e-mail “form letters” or
petitions usually do not receive much attention or carry much influence.
Even the most carefully composed, original e-mail message may not get a serious
reading, much less a reply. Letters are preferred for their formality and perceived seriousness;
phone calls and visits have the benefit of a “personal touch.” The only method of political
communication that is consistently less effective than e-mail is fax. Issue advocates or
constituents with concerns or requests are more likely to get responses if they write letters, make
phone calls, or pay visits to their local official’s office than if they send e-mail messages.
E-mail usage is associated, legitimately, with several problems and risks, such as
computer viruses, sabotage, tampering, and lies, and liability concerns. Technical limitations,
Convention