&gt; That&#x27;s a very different thing from voting for pre-selected candidates whom you&#x27;ve never met and don&#x27;t interact with, and then crossing your fingers.<p>I&#x27;m a bit sick right now, thus either my math or my formulas might be off. I welcome any corrections. :)<p>So.<p>Copyright policy is decided at the Federal level. The people in charge of setting that policy are elected members of Congress.<p>Let&#x27;s assume that you can declare someone &quot;met and interacted with&quot; with a single five-minute conversation.<p>According to Wikipedia, California is the most populous state and Wyoming is the least populous state.<p>The CA Secretary of State reports that ~17 million voters were registered to vote as of the date of the 2014 general election. The WY Secretary of State reports that ~240 thousand voters were registered to vote as of that same date.<p>There are 124,800 minutes in a standard 40-hour-per-week, no-vacations-or-holidays work year. (60x40x52)<p>For Wyoming, each Senatorial challenger would need to spend 48,000 minutes per election cycle speaking to each registered voter. (240,000&#x2F;5) That&#x27;s doable.<p>For California, a challenger would spend 3,400,000 minutes per election cycle on the same task. (17,000,000&#x2F;5) For California, what you propose is not possible for Senatorial challengers... they&#x27;d have to do nothing but hold conferences for 27 <i>years</i> to get this task done. (3,400,000&#x2F;124,800)<p>So, what&#x27;s the largest state where this <i>is</i> feasible?<p>This <i>might</i> be South Dakota (the 46th most populous state) (with -I think- ~514,000 voters). [0] If it&#x27;s not, it&#x27;s definitely Alaska (the 48th) (with ~509,000 voters).<p>So, it is <i>physically impossible</i> to even pay <i>lip service</i> to what you propose in either <i>fourty-six</i>, or <i>fourty-eight</i> of the states in the US.<p>Before you get <i>too</i> cranky, I <i>do</i> acknowledge that the situation changes when one meets with one&#x27;s Representative:<p>In California the 27-year workload would -roughly- be divided over 53 representatives, meaning that they&#x27;d only have to spend just over <i>half</i> of a year meeting every registered voter in the state. But... this assumes a five-minute meeting. If that constituent meeting balloons to <i>ten</i> minutes, we&#x27;re right back in the realm of impossibility.<p>While the workload <i>might</i> be smaller in the smallest states, Representatives are apportioned by <i>population</i>, so I don&#x27;t expect that the picture would vary very much from state to state.<p>In short, your idea is promising, and would be <i>really</i> great to do... but there just <i>aren&#x27;t enough hours in the day</i> to make it happen. [1]<p>[0] I&#x27;m having a fuck of a time finding historical voter registration numbers for SD.  So, <i>that</i> voter registration number is based off of what I&#x27;m pretty sure is <i>current</i> voter registration data. :&#x2F; (North Dakota doesn&#x27;t even <i>have</i> voter registration!).<p>[1] Yes, my analysis ignores the fact that a campaign could <i>conceivably</i> be a multi-year thing. It&#x27;s difficult to get good numbers on the length of an average Congressional campaign, but it&#x27;s... difficult to believe that a campaign would run for longer than two years.