Please be respectful of my time by reading what I write and not trying to change what you actually said.
You said
>--------------------------------------------
particularly when we have the technology today to literally ask everyone what they think.
>--------------------------------------------
In turn I said
>--------------------------------------------
To get a statistically valid sample of 338M people you need as little as a few thousand respondents depending on desired accuracy.
>--------------------------------------------
Now you say
>--------------------------------------------
If you're sitting here, telling me it's too much work to talk to everyone to actually get a representative sample
>--------------------------------------------
You know what I said and you knew what I said.
The broader context is the parent poster, rather than you, attempted to dismiss legitimate sources by asserting without evidence that polls are worthless.
He made the statement thus
>--------------------------------------------
You put too much stock in polls. The average (or even intelligent) person does not have time for polls. Trusting these numbers is to believe in FUD.
>--------------------------------------------
To which you answered
>--------------------------------------------
They are right...
>--------------------------------------------
They aren't right and you aren't right. Polling is an imperfect tool. Changing how you phrase a question can change the answer. Getting a representative sample is an imperfect science. This is good cause to ask how it was used vs misused lest a manipulative author come to the preordained conclusion. It is not however good cause to dismiss the entire notion of polling and ask no-one nor that we somehow as you said ask "literally everyone". Nor is it reasonable to determine what the people want by looking at the contents of your legislators mailbox.
They will no doubt be full of letters from a passionate self selected minority rather than representing in any way shape or form a representative sample.
You can say polls aren't grounds for policy but they are a damn fine tool to find out on average what the potentially millions of constituents think as opposed to the 12 people that wrote letters and if you want a substantial portion of those millions to vote for you then you had better at least understand what they think even if you intend to defy them because you know better.