IT’S EASY TO get disillusioned and think things can never change in South Carolina’s government, particularly since most elections go uncontested.

But look at what is happening at the federal level: When the 9/11 commission released its recommendations last month on making our nation safer, the initial reaction by the president and, more strikingly, leaders in the Congress was to dismiss out of hand any suggestion that action should or even could occur before the next Congress convenes in January.

Then the public — led by a small group of passionate people — rose up and demanded immediate action.

Within 24 hours, President Bush, beginning a vacation, ordered his chief of staff to lead an administrationwide review of the recommendations; the Republican and Democratic leaders of the U.S. Senate ordered a committee to hold hearings and produce bills by Oct. 1; the House speaker, scrambling to keep pace, promised to announce (and did) a hearing schedule the following week. Now less than four weeks later, the president has warmed to an intelligence czar (albeit with restrictions), and a half-dozen House and Senate committees are holding hearings in the middle of the Congress’ summer recess.

Certainly the upcoming elections had an effect. And it’s true that it’s hard to top 9/11 as a motivating cause. But it’s also true that the vast majority of members of the Congress face no opposition this fall, and most who do face token opposition. Moreover, there are fewer things more difficult to do than to turn around the determined will of the Congress.

Compared with that, turning around the South Carolina General Assembly on a few major issues should be a snap — even if every incumbent who survived the June primaries returns to the State House in January.

Several grassroots groups have already formed, and have started working to get people involved not just at election time but year-round to let elected officials know what the public expects of them; they should use the efforts of the 9/11 commission and the network of 9/11 victims’ families as a model.

And a Greenwood County educator has come up with the first proposal I’ve seen to send a direct message to unopposed candidates that we want change. As Gary West explained on our op-ed page a couple of weeks ago, he would have us all write in our own names in any uncontested election on the ballot this fall. That idea alone won’t shake the Legislature into positive action, but it is one more thing we can do to get our representatives’ attention.

The thing that’s too easy to forget in our everybody-who-disagrees-with-me-is-evil culture is that most elected officials are willing to listen to — and be persuaded by — their constituents. Most simply don’t hear from their constituents. Instead, they hear from organizations that hire lobbyists and give campaign donations. They hear from party leaders. They hear from fellow legislators. All this makes for a very insulating world, one in which the status quo and conventional wisdom are rarely challenged.

But as the speedy turn-around on the 9/11 commission report shows, elected officials can be persuaded to consider change, to break from their usual way of doing things.

We desperately need that in South Carolina. And we must work for it.

We might start with Mr. West’s admittedly quixotic idea. It’s certainly not perfect. For instance, I disagree with his suggestion that we write in our names in all uncontested races — even if we’re satisfied with the way the incumbent is performing.

Frankly, some incumbents do a fine job, and it shouldn’t upset us a bit when they don’t draw opposition. We should be just as interested in encouraging them to stay the course as we are in encouraging the others to change.

In a perfect world, the best incumbents wouldn’t draw opposition, because everybody would agree that they’re doing a fine job. Of course, too often, it’s the best legislators who face opposition, while the ones who most need to be replaced go unchallenged, term after term. The key is distinguishing between the two groups, and sending the appropriate message to each legislator.

No one should look at Mr. West’s proposal as a permanent solution; it’s a temporary fix, born of the frustration of the moment.

Even if the majority of voters in the state were to write in their own names and send a strong enough message to legislators to prompt change, those changes would likely be temporary. Besides, this idea makes it difficult to know precisely what voters are complaining about.

As simplistic as it sounds, the permanent — and appropriate — solution is for all of us to get involved with groups that share our goals, and work both through them and individually to let our legislators know what we expect of them. And then, if that doesn’t work, the solution is for more of us to put our own names on the ballot to challenge those incumbents who aren’t representing our interests. If we represent the majority view — and I believe a lot of discontented voters this year do — then we’ll either defeat them, or we’ll change them. And either way, South Carolina wins.

Ms. Scoppe can be reached at cscoppe@thestate.com or at (803) 771-8571.