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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.