As an ‘un-brainwashed” political thinker, I’ve become wary of browsing the daily e-mail and downright fearful of opening my post office mailbox. The disproportionate election-year mix of bills, catalogs, magazines, and solicitations (from both political parties) is more evident than ever, ballooned by a barrage of repetitive voter “surveys” designed to stimulate last-page party financial contributions. I conclude that the Postal Service is being largely supported by campaign-related literature. Do they add to the Gross National Product? I’m not opposed to surveys. In fact, I encourage them, but more so after the election. We generally vote for candidates who appear to share our general view of political issues: pragmatists or dreamers, spendthrifts or scrooges, aggressors or defenders, pacifists or war-hawks, worshipers or agnostics. As specific legislative topics and options arise and implementation details draw attention, however, I’d like to see more outreach to test constituent sentiment at a more granular, meaningful and timely level. None of us should be viewed as “automatic” supporters of party dogma. In a presidential year when issues of age, health, personality, and conduct are relevant factors for voter consideration, we need to pay particular attention to running mates and the makeup of Congress. Down-ballot selection gains importance if that body is to regain its intended deliberative role in advancing proposed legislation, usurped in recent administrations by unprecedented executive orders. Come November, Americans must clarify and preserve the essential Constitutional distinction between democracy and autocracy. Phil Osifer