Getting feedback is essential to how we operate as people. We look to get a response on almost everything we do, from preparing for a major presentation to how we interact with different people. But when we inhibit or outright reject feedback, improving upon our weaknesses and learning where our problems lie becomes difficult. This line of reasoning also extends to our elected officials. Feedback is key to how the government operates, and attacking and rejecting the critiques that are given signals a move toward a government that doesn’t favor its electorate or the democratic values the founding fathers envisioned.
Elections are the most obvious way politicians receive feedback. For U.S. representatives, this direct assessment comes every two years, where the electorate decides if the officials did the job that was expected of them, or at the very least better than the opposition. Other elected federal officials, like the president and senators, get this assessment every four and six years, respectively.
Outside of elections, assessments for elected officials come in different forms. Some constituents can meet with their representatives and senators, but most don’t have the time or ability to do so. Constituents also have the option to call the office of their elected official, which is usually open but doesn’t typically fall directly into the ears of those they are trying to contact. This leaves constituents with two main forms of contact: polling and town halls. Both of which show elected officials how their constituents feel about their job and their policy decisions.
But in the last few months, elected officials have chosen to ignore, and in some cases, attack these sources of criticism. Pollsters and polling aggregate companies like the Monmouth University Poll and FiveThirtyEight have decided to shut down, citing a changing political landscape. And the political landscape has changed: Elected officials have begun attacking them for their work. Some elected officials have gone so far as to sue pollsters for their faulty data collection and models — representative of the already hostile environment that is growing in the polling sector since the 2024 election. While the avenue of polling is under attack, the other outlet of evaluation left for elected officials isn’t faring much better.
Since the inauguration of President Donald Trump, town halls have become increasingly hostile toward elected officials on both sides of the aisle. Constituents have railed against Republicans’ policy decisions and Democrats’ purported inaction. These town halls, while hostile at times, still serve as a form of direct assessment from the constituents these elected officials serve, and the concerns brought up are a real representation of the issues that constituents care about. But, they are becoming more scarce.
As a result of backlash, however, elected officials have stopped hosting town hall meetings or other public events where they meet with constituents. For instance, the National Republican Congressional Committee told U.S. representatives to end their town hall meetings and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, forewent a book tour as a result of the controversial spending bill he supported in opposition to many members of his party.
While the outright rejection of feedback is worrying, there is some reasoning behind it for those who chose to reject it. People’s view of polling can negatively influence how officials or candidates are perceived. The justification for Trump’s lawsuit against the Des Moines Register for its 2024 election polling was the accusation of defamation. While these polls aren’t predictions, for some they serve as a stand-in for how they are viewed by the public, and when it is used incorrectly, it can result in an even larger negative bias against them.
Additionally, there are claims that a loud, disruptive minority has taken over town halls, which doesn’t truly represent the entire electorate that the officials represent. These concerns are legitimate. Although some contest whether polling can cause defamation, there is a legitimate concern that a small group could hold a town hall meeting captive; attendees of these meetings have done it before and throughout history.
Regardless of these concerns of inaccuracies, limiting the means to give and outright rejecting input from the electorate is wrong and should be scrutinized. For every poll that is perceived in a negative way or small minority that hijacks a town hall meeting, there are many more that are truly representative of what the electorate wants, and elected officials silencing these means of criticism is what puts a democracy at risk. These elected officials are meant to serve as a representative of their constituents. They are not meant to serve as a member of a political organization that doesn’t care for the people that they represent.
A democratic republic where those who represent the electorate refuse to hear critiques from the very same electorate isn’t functional. This becomes a far cry from the intentions of the founding fathers, rendering the titles of representative or senator placed upon these officials from the first article of the Constitution worthless if they refuse to do the job they were elected to do. This doesn’t mean that in order to do their jobs, each elected official has to act on every criticism they receive, but it does mean that in order to live up to the title they are given, they cannot stop the critiques they receive.
I can’t offer you a perfect solution to get elected officials to begin listening and opening up more avenues for feedback. It’s their choice, after all. Sure, there are elections where the electorates’ response should be unavoidable, but across the world it’s not perfect, as people like Elon Musk have faced and continue to face election interference allegations in both federal and state elections. In the meantime, there is only so much one can do. In the case of some elected officials, social media engagement may be a possible avenue to give feedback.
This can come in the form of tagging a representative or senator to raise an issue to them that may otherwise be ignored. Especially as social media allows for large groups of people to raise an issue collectively instead of on a one by one basis, presenting an issue and getting support for it on social media can amplify the issue beyond the level of a town hall, even going out to a national level at times. We need to support those who are open to criticism. These officials and potential suitors for positions for the future are what we base our government on. Regardless of political party or other associations, those who have the integrity to own up to their decisions and listen to those they represent are what we need now, especially as our voice in the government becomes ever quieter.
Thomas Muha is an Opinion Columnist and can be reached at tmuha@umich.edu. His column “Internet Insight” discusses the legal and economic issues facing the internet today.
The post We should be giving our elected officials more feedback appeared first on The Michigan Daily.
Leave a Reply