Slashdot Mirror
Should Congress Telecommute?
schwit1 writes "Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) wants to create a 'virtual Congress,' where lawmakers would leverage videoconferencing and other remote work technology to conduct their daily duties in Washington from their home districts. Under a resolution Pearce introduced on Thursday, lawmakers would be able to hold hearings, debate and vote on legislation virtually from their district offices. The big loser would be the DC area and K Street in particular. The change would also be a double-edged sword for security."
And then President Marissa Mayer should fire them for not working.
Sure... Why not? They can work from the offices of the corporations and special interest groups that actually fund their decisions.
What?! Doing nothing AND wanking the whole day?
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
One justification for Congressional salaries is that they have to pay for a 2nd home in D.C. They also get taxpayer-funded travel between their home districts at DC, averaging >$2m per member of Congress. Are these expenses going to actually be cut if they move towards telecommuting?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
This proposal fails to account for deals cut in smoke-filled back rooms (smoke-free back rooms for younger Democrats). Since most of what matters in government happens in such places, and they can't be replaced with teleconferencing for various reasons, this proposal won't work.
I could swear 80% of them are just phoning it in.
I've got mod points, but I don't care. This is one of my hot buttons. :)
1. Senators and representatives would be closer to their actual constituents. There's at least a slightly improved chance that they'll actually vote the way the people who elected them want.
2. It wouldn't save a lot of money on the grand scale, but it would be a useful symbol to cut the costs (heating, cooling, transportation) of clustering all the morons in Washington.
2-1/2 - it would make it more difficult for lobbyists to buy an entire block of votes. This would force the LOBBYISTS to sink tons of money into travel to visit each Congresscritter. It's a beautiful thing. :)
2-3/4: LOCAL news media would have better access to the Congresscritters, and if we're really lucky, they could watch the 'critter's local headquarters and report on who came and left that day -- including the aforementioned lobbyists. No large parking lots or hallways to more easily become "lost" in.
3. We have the technology to make it secure. Video conferencing could replace endless meetings. AND SPEECHES. Man, getting rid of the speeches alone would be worth it.
4. The really dumb ones wouldn't know how to vote electronically or attend the video conferences, acting as a natural selection effect on dumb votes!
Who knows? We might actually (OK, I'm dreaming now) elect people with brains, who would at least be required to know how to write and operate a computer, instead of blowhards who are elected simply because they know how to speak well in front of a camera.
Do it. I'm all for it.
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
Anybody who thinks videoconferencing is good must not have spent much time videoconferencing
To start with take one step: Allow votes to be entered without having to visit the floor. If you watch house hearings you see them take breaks for votes on the floor. Why not a special device that allows a vote based upon reading a fingerprint. Have it at least work anywhere on the capitol grounds.
And not only parliaments and similar, but also the various international gatherings, like the G20, APEC, and similar. Think of all the money that is spent on security at these big international conferences, protecting some of the scum (floats to the top) from the protesters. You could spend that money upgrading telecommunication links, invest in some really good videoconferencing stuff, and go.
And it would work just as well for parliaments and congresses. The same argument for upgrading telecommunications links, which should go down well in rural areas. It would reduce the number of fist fights (one of the few downsides), get rid of heckling (the speaker can simply refuse to let a person's microphone be live) and so on. It would save a silly amount of money on airfares, 2nd houses etc. It would also reduce the amount of influence lobbyists have, as they can't just spend a day going and seeing six different people (30 in a week). They would actually have to fly or otherwise travel to each home district.
Now, someone is thinking, but the real business gets done in the corridors, not in the actual meetings. And? All those lackeys can just get on the phone and talk to each other that way. It might even reduce the number of laws passed!
Really I can't think of a major downside (OK, it does make it harder to bomb them all and thus wipe them all out at once).
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
I agree, it would be an improvement for most of the reasons you listed. But also consider that the current form of government reflects the technological state of society (communications, travel, etc.) at the time it was formed. The subsequent advancements in technology ought to be reflecting an advancement of what the form of governance itself looks like.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Isn't teleconferencing all about speaking in front of a camera?
This will give the old ones in power a means of censoring or silencing unpopular (to them anyways,) rants from either the other side of the aisle or freshmen seats. "He is not following Majority Rules! Cut that guy's feed!" C-SPAN cannot even keep a feed coming during "public" events, and you think this will change?
This is just adding a new power to those in charge that would directly effect our governing. A switch to silence instead of a gavel and pleading.
As long as it's properly transparent.
You can watch quite a bit of congress on CSPAN. It's mind numbingly boring most days, but you can watch it. (Mainly because all of the interesting stuff is done via back room deals.) I just hope that I can watch the teleconferenced stuff as easily, if not easier.
I'd also love for most of it to be recorded. I know it wont (thanks Nixon), but it would be awesome.
So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
Why would this weaken K Street? The average member of Congress doesn't spend much time in DC as it is. It would weaken the Houses as deliberative bodies, and I'm sure that lobbyists will find ways to exploit that.
Legislators are all trolls. One will figure out how to loop video of himself reading something and fillibuster until they change back the laws.
They already spend too much time in their home districts. Jet air travel allows them to constantly return to their home base, where they get constant earfuls of whining from their gerrymandered constituents (whatever the political slant of the particular district). So they pop back briefly into DC to work with colleagues who they now barely know, and with no motivation to compromise on *anything*.
Hence, nothing gets accomplished, least of all steering this country away from financial crises.
Presumably, this country was set up as a republic for a reason. One of those would be for the members of congress to actually spend time working together, for the good of the country as a whole.
Now, if they want to improve how congress works, it would be better to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting *lobbyists* from interacting with members of congress in person. Trackable email and video calls only.
Are we talking about the same Congress that revels in the fact that they know nothing about technology?
That would be fun to watch.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
No! They should pack their shit and leave us alone. Same goes to every politician out there. And the "special interest groups", corporate managers and CEOs and all the other greedy, power-hungry scum. We have the Internet, we can manage ourselves now, as long as the assholes in suits stay out of it.
So the interests with less money will fade away and only the richest and most powerful lobbyists will be able to continue to exert their influence?
Aren't Congressional sessions open to the public anyway? They can still get together physically for backroom deals or whatever.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
I, too, have thought about this idea for several years. It seems like it is a simple way to add another (greatly needed) check to balance out some of the issues our current mode of legislation lacks.
A few others are documented at:
http://miscreantsinaction.blogspot.com/
Well, you make the assumption that lobbyists won't use telecommuting to speak to them from Washington (or wherever) instead of visiting them in person. They'll be able to have a completely private and secure (read unrecorded or unmonitored) session with their respective purchased Congressman and no one will ever know. Park your local media outside the office all you want. They're not going to see anything.
There are various portions of the Constitution that mention the house location and what defines a session. So you would have to make some changes to the Constitution to get this to work or just claim it is a "Living Document" and go and do it.
These ppl need to meet each other and learn to trust the other guy.
In fact, 3 nights a week, these ppl should be required to dine with each other.
It is the insane attitudes towards each other that is causing them to not compromise.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
5. You could MITM the votes, rather than relying on Deibold to do it.
A telecommuting, decentralized Congress would make life for all those "poor" lobbyists much more difficult. They'll have to travel to all kinds of weird States they never heard before to deliver their corruption^Wcampaign money to Congresspeople, instead of having them all in one nice place inside the Beltway. Won't anybody please think of the lobbyists?!
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
It may cut down on their travel expenses... but likely only to levels seen before congress adopted a "business in the middle of the week" schedule.
They already have a hard time communicating and working together. If anything, they should be forced to live in close quarters and deal with each other until they can learn to get along like adults.
It would be beneficial to force these politicians to actually use the technology, of which so many of them are so proudly ignorant. Most of them know less (and that's no exaggeration) about computers and the Internet than an average 8 year old child, yet in their hubris they feel that they are qualified to enact legislation to regulate it.
We would all benefit if they understood what the Internet is and actually used it in the course of their jobs. On Youtube I watched (or rather listened to) the entire congressional SOPA Hearing from 12/15/11 and was shocked at the general profound level ignorance of technology in general. It reminded me of a bunch of drunk blind people discussing a photograph of an elephant.
These people flat out dismiss any expert opinion regarding technology as "technical Jargon" and feel that there is no need for them to understand any of it, but they are nevertheless hell-bent on trying to control it. I think having them work virtually as well as maintain their own computers would be an excellent start.
Have gnu, will travel.
One problem with our congress is that they don't like each other and they don't have much incentive to get to know each other. If they were to never actually meet one another, that would only make things worse.
I would much rather have Congress work more like a game show, in which a congressional session lasts two months and takes place on a jungle island where the reps have to cooperate or die. When not in session, they could be in their home districts or whatever. For the same reason why juries can't produce just rulings if they're not sequestered together, Congress should be forced to hash out their business while sequestered. They could still have contact to their aids and research staff, but on the island, it would just be them, wild boars, and the occasional helicopter bringing food, beer and medicine.
A telecommuting congress is pretty much exactly the opposite of what would help.
The big loser would be the DC area and K Street in particular.
Not hardly. K Street will just start telecommuting too.
1. Senators and representatives would be closer to their actual constituents. There's at least a slightly improved chance that they'll actually vote the way the people who elected them want.
Look closely at a man's home district and you can almost always predict way he will vote. There are very few surprises. The geek doesn't want to hear that because the decisions the Congress makes almost never go his way.
2-1/2 - it would make it more difficult for lobbyists to buy an entire block of votes. This would force the LOBBYISTS to sink tons of money into travel to visit each Congresscritter.
You don't get out much, do you?
The lobbyist already has a presence in your Congressman's home district.
He's been there from the beginning, lobbying state and local governments. In the old days, before the direct election of the Senate, he would often be appointed to the Senate. The Senator for Pennsylvania Coal. The Senator for Nevada Silver.
We might actually (OK, I'm dreaming now) elect people with brains, who would at least be required to know how to write and operate a computer, instead of blowhards who are elected simply because they know how to speak well in front of a camera.
Social skills win elections. Build effective coalitions.
Jimmy Carter had as fine a scientific and technical education as one could ask for. He can be an able and effective writer. But that does not make him a politician.
Carter paid too much attention to detail. He frequently backed down from confrontation and was quick to retreat when attacked by political rivals. He appeared to be indecisive and ineffective, and did not define his priorities clearly. He seemed to be distrustful and uninterested in working with other groups, or even with Congress when controlled by his own party, which he denounced for being controlled by special interest groups.
In the 1980 campaign, Ronald Reagan projected an easy self-confidence, in contrast to Carter's serious and introspective temperament. Carter's personal attention to detail, his pessimistic attitude, his seeming indecisiveness and weakness with people were accentuated in contrast to Reagan's charismatic charm and delegation of tasks to subordinates. Reagan used the economic problems, Iran hostage crisis, and lack of Washington cooperation to portray Carter as a weak and ineffectual leader. Carter was the first elected president since Hoover in 1932 to lose a reelection bid.
Jimmy Carter
Seems like that's what they've been doing for years. Thing is, they don't have computers.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
200 years ago, the common, simple folk toiled in the fields all day while their better, nobler representatives gathered to discuss important issues in a far off city. This was the best way to self-govern based on the communication technology that was available: screaming at each other face-to-face in a capitol building. Since then, communication has come a long way. We have things such as email, phones, text, blogs, video, etc. So, now these "representatives" want to tele-commute? You bet! Maybe even the common, simple folk will realize we no longer need representatives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy We're moving in the right direction.
Polatics is not a fracking desk job a lot of politicking goes on both inside and outside the chambers - would you want your senator congressman to miss some pork for you home state because of his.
Mr Pearce seems to be "away with the faeries" as they say in Scotland - some needs to arrange a recall vote asap he doesn't seem capable of representing his constituents.
If congress can stage DDOS attacks against itself, why shouldn't it add telecommuting to its repertoire?
It's hard to slip them a bag of cash over the VC link, and faxing the cash doesn't work out so well.
Learn to love Alaska
Yes, let's have both houses of congress telecommute; that way they could either use the Capitol Building as a movie theater or, I know, let's make it the best set ever for American Idol!
More than the over 5 months a year they get already? That is about how many breaks Congress takes a year. And they can ignore you just as well at home as in DC. After all, you aren't the big contributors to their campaign.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
I agree with all these points. +1
The Senate would never do it but I thihnk it would be good for representative democracy for the House to do it.
This never seemed particularly desirable, and I think it sums up the main problem with certain implementations of a representative democracy.
Ideally, don't you want to people who represent your interests rather than what people in your area want?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
LBJ in 1968 was so unpopular that he withdrew from his reelection bid early in the primary process. Now that's losing.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
They already "work" less than they "vacation" and now they want to have the ability to legislate naked?
Is there anything else they'd like? Cabana boys? Oh, wait, the have pages for that.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
EVERYONE who can, should telecommute, at least some days of the week if in person meetings are not required.
I just spent 1.5 hours driving to work (no, there's no public transport in my case that would get me here quicker) for a job that I could do 95% of via telecommute (sysadmin / network architect).
It would cut down on traffic, cut down on emissions, and I'd get an extra 2-3 hours per day to either work or get other life stuff done.
It's a no-brainer.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Ban campaign contributions from anyone who doesn't live in their home state/district. This gets tricky for corporations since big ones wanting to contribute will just open a wholly owned "company" locally to make the contributions. It would still make it harder. Also, I should think individual states could impose this rule on their own representatives, or political advertising within their borders - and that might be considered self-interest by the local lawmakers.
You are talking about bringing an institution like Congress into the 21st century? WHOA!
Seriously though, first, that means all the lobbyists have to travel more because all the congresscritters are not located in the same general area. That means that Congressfolk will not need to maintain their residence in their home state and one in DC. That means that all that time that they schedule off during the course of the year, will no longer be required. That means that they will all be closer to their constituents...
They will never go for that, it means that they might actually have to work...
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." General James Mattis
(1) They have fewer than you'd think.
(2) Even they don't often read everything.
(3) Often staff members have $$$ jobs lined up for when their boss leaves office. ("We're not being bribed! We swear!" - This is a real problem, even for the rare honest politician or two.)
(4) They should STILL read each bill all the way through at least once before being briefed by their staff. Even if they don't know the exact language, they should know everything in every bill they vote on. (They don't. Not even close.) Thus, I have absolutely no qualms about the term "negligence" being used.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
So tax payers should foot the bill for the added network and telecommunications equipment for this perk. No way! As long as members of congress are acting like two year old children, they should have no telecommuting privileges. This angers me to no end!