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."

14 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    And then President Marissa Mayer should fire them for not working.

    1. Re:Yes! by camg188 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If it decreases the influence of lobbyists, then yes.

  2. Why not? by Das+Auge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure... Why not? They can work from the offices of the corporations and special interest groups that actually fund their decisions.

    1. Re:Why not? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 5, Interesting

      On the other hand those offices and corporations wouldn't have a single spot to send all their lobbyists too any more.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    2. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wasn't real thrilled with the idea at first due to concerns around the integrity of the system, but then I imagined them working from a remote town hall and surrounded by their constituants instead of their peers and lobbyies. I think it could do great things for establishing accountability.

    3. Re:Why not? by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you don't have to show up, it removes most of the logistical issues that prevent regular people from serving. So the "fix" to government is to have a senate that looks like the house, and a house that is made up of 1,000,000 Americans representing local areas of 300-400 people each. The legislation from the house can be written like drunken ramblings, and the "bill" would be re-written in the Senate to resemble the existing laws. The Senate would be a sanity check on the mob, but reduced in power. 3/5 majority for anything to pass out of the house, and anyone with a 0% pass rate after 10 submissions loses the right to submit for the remainder of his term, but the people he represents can hold a re-election to fill the seat.

      If we are going to move to the information age, we might as well continue this "great experiment" as an experiment.

  3. only if it saves money by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  4. I've been yelling about this for a few years now. by smpoole7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  5. Videoconferencing by MpVpRb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anybody who thinks videoconferencing is good must not have spent much time videoconferencing

  6. Filibuster how? by Pitawg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  7. No way by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Absolutely NOT by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  9. They need *more* face time, not less. by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  10. Re:Likely not actually saving any money by penix1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everyone harps on about the Congressional budget. It is a document that means absolutely nothing. It doesn't have to be voted on by the house, signed by the president nothing. It is a wish list only. The House, Senate and Presidential budgets mean zilch. They are solely used to beat up the others with politically. It isn't like the budgets set around the kitchen table at home.

    And while we are on the subject, if you have any debt whatsoever, you are running at a deficit. I argue there isn't a household in America that isn't running a deficit. Mortgages, credit cards, bank loans, student loans, etc are all deficit spending. The only difference is the size of income vs. deficit and the fact that every 6 months Congress goes through the pain of having to couple the spending they already did with the artificial boundary they setup known as the debt ceiling.

    Today's Congress lives on crisis of their own making. And the effect on the very real economy is devastating. Everything from the current sequester to the debt ceiling is of their own doing. It is little wonder their popularity ratings are in the single digits.

    --
    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.