Slashdot Mirror
Should Lawmakers Be Able To Hold Hearings, Debate and Vote On Legislation Virtually From Their District Offices? (thehill.com)
Applehu Akbar shares an old report raising a very good question for today's Congress: why not use today's videoconferencing tech to allow representatives to perform most Congressional activity from their home districts?" The ability to "work from home" would be especially beneficial during a government shutdown, like the one we're currently in, where money is tight and Congressional members are "sick and tired of Washington and don't want to show up anymore to vote." Slashdot reader Applehu Akbar writes: Because Congress people serve short terms and campaign largely on constituent service, they have to spend a large percentage of their time shuttling between home and Washington. Virtualizing most of their Washington presence would save fuel and energy while giving them more time with their constituents. In addition, there could be a long-term societal benefit in making Congress less vulnerable to lobbyist influence by keeping them out of the Beltway. Pearce told The Hill in a statement back in 2013: "Thanks to modern technology, members of Congress can debate, vote, and carry out their constitutional duties without having to leave the accountability and personal contact of their congressional districts. Keeping legislators closer to the people we represent would pull back Washington's curtain and allow constituents to see and feel, first-hand, their government at work. Corporations and government agencies use remote work technology; it's time that Congress does the same."
All the "think tanks" and lobbyists are in D.C. That is where the money is. Why would a politician be outside of the city of the people they serve? That doesn't make any sense.
Most of the work is hearing testimony from the agencies they oversee which is done in sub-committee and committee. Then there is confirmation for thousands of federal executive employees which is also committee work.
And most of the work of drafting laws is done by their staffs and testimony from stakeholders to their relevant committees and sub-committees along with several congressional committees meeting to iron out language differences
The actual floor debate you fall asleep to on C-SPAN is BS and a tiny part of the process
The next scandal would be the Russians or Chinese hacking a close vote.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The only thing I'd be concerned about is security. No one being able to tap into the feed. No one being able to use the cutting-edge technology available to create a 'virtual congressperson', digitally impersonating them. 'In person' in a secure setting prevents these problems.
While we are at it, we should return (federal) Congressional districts back to their original size - about 30,000 citizens per Representative.
Yes, that is about 10,000 members. Impossible to do now while they all have to meet physically in a single room in DC, but trivial when their office is in the district they purport to represent.
See that "Preview" button?
While this seems like a no-brainer, there should be cause for concern. We're not even sure if we have been able to secure our elections. What happens if some one manages to fake that they are a congressman? Or a congressman realizes that his constituency doesn't like the way they voted and claims that they were hacked?
If it does become possible to secure this type of thing, why do we even need congressmen any longer? At what point does it get decided that the people themselves can vote on what they want? That's entirely different, and scary discussion.
no one is forcing them in those jobs... and if so, can i use the same excuse for my job?
Ordinarily I would be against allowing the political class much, including the ability to telecommute while screwing everyone over. However, this is a GREAT idea. Taking the principal actors of the political class OUT of Washington DC and scattering them around the country will be GREAT for public life.
Removing elected representatives from an incestuous pool of lobbyists, revolving door back-scratchers, and fellating journalists would do wonders for civic AND economic life in the United States.
Concentrating politicans in the Principal city is bad for everyone. Just look at Ireland post Act of Union, or France today, or basically any country where politicians are physically divorced from their constituencies and focused on the corrupt and narcissistic culture of their imperial capitals.
I'd ban Congressmen from ever leaving their states if possible. Maybe make the President have to drive around to every state to get Bills signed as well. And furthermore I move that Washington D.C. be destroyed.
Admittently, Congress has devolved to not do much, but..
One of the purposes of Congress is for the views of the different states to come together into a general understanding.
Remote congresscritters IS the reverse of this.
Unless you wish to dissolve the union. But we already settled that.
I think doing this is going to be opposed for the reason it's a gateway to additional reform of the american government. If you have your reps being able to work remotely, then why have a limit on the number of reps in the House? As per the original constitutional rule: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative.". This would actually resolve a ton of problems in representation, most notably gerrymandering, as you'd basically be allowing any 30k people in an area to vote someone into office. This would mean that the representatives would actually be members of a community their representing, and have jobs other than "politician". This is obviously a non-starter, because it not only would probably significantly dent the power of the Republican party (see the popular vote counts!), but the Democratic party and leaders would lose sway because 3rd party candidates would be easily competitive. It would be a huge swing to the power structure of the US, and a net positive for the people, but a huge change to the status quo.
They are being paid very well to negotiate and vote. When they can't do that, they need to be fired.
The ability to "work from home" would be especially beneficial during a government shutdown, like the one we're currently in, where money is tight and Congressional members are "sick and tired of Washington and don't want to show up anymore to vote."
Boo hoo. Cry me a damn river. Congress could end this right now by compromising with a veto-proof majority and reopening the government. They created this mess. Now they don't want to show up for work to fix a mess they created? It's time for Congress to do their damn jobs.
Any member of congress has staff working at district offices to assist their constituents. There's less need for the actual member of Congress to leave Washington because of the ability to instantly communicate with staff at district offices. A lot of travel back to their home districts is for publicity appearances and fundraising, which may help with getting re-elected, but isn't an essential component of the job.
The only exception I can see to allow a lawmaker to participate remotely is when they are otherwise incapable of returning to Washington. I would not have objected to allowing John McCain to participate remotely while receiving treatment for cancer. But that's an anomaly and shouldn't be a regular occurrence.
If it's unpleasant to show up for work during the government shutdown, good. I'm glad it forces them to face the unpleasant realities of a situation completely of their own making. Perhaps they ought to spend time negotiating with their fellow members of Congress. A lot of deals are made off the floors of the House and Senate, in face-to-face meetings involving small groups. That's where compromises happen, and I suspect impromptu meetings like those are less likely to occur if members of Congress participate remotely.
People are 10 foot tall and bullet proof behind virtual presence, look in the comments for examples. People are much less confrontational and passive aggressive face to face.
One of Newt Gingrich's core strategies for creating a Congress which couldn't work together was to discourage GOP members from fraternizing with the opposition. The idea was that they should spend more time in their home district, not have formal Washington residences, and DEFINITELY not spend any social time with Democrats. This prevents cases where friendships across the aisle develop based on mutual respect - you maybe disagree with someone, but you don't believe them to be a bad person. These days, politicians start from a position that their opponents are simply evil, and thus need not spend any effort trying to understand their opponents' positions.
Distributed working groups can work REALLY well if everyone involved works very hard to interact and keep on the same page as each other. But in my experience this is really hard, and it generally only works if you use this ability as a selection criteria. If you just select a dozen people based on criteria other than their ability to work together remotely, generally things end up a trainwreck, even if everyone in the group is generally awesome. [My experience is based mostly on software-engineering, which is likely far easier to do in a distributed group than politics. The entire POINT of politics is group discussions to figure out the solution, which is exactly the type of thing that works worst with distributed teams.]
It has ALWAYS been possible to allow a politician to vote by PROXY since the dawn of parliaments many thousands of years ago. The reason this has always been resisted has NOTHING to do with tech, as neo-liberal war loving slashdot attempts to imply with the story.
The whole reason for forcing pols to actually attend in person (see recent votes in the UK parliament) is to keep true to the idea of 'democracy'- not the fake democracy shilled by slashdot- but the concept that within the chamber, every person has an equal vote. It is the same reason why, before the age of the satanic Tony Blair, accusers in British courts had to appear in person with their face revealed to the court and the defendent.
The idea of faceless accusers or 'remote' politicians is straight out of 1984 or any other dystopian vision of the future, which is why slashdot loves it.
Now of course neoliberal trash- the same trash that supported the West's wahhabi invasion of Syria- will sell the laughable lie that remore voting would remove the power of lobbyists- as if major lobbyists are some country bumpkin operation with no ability to operate outside of Washington DC. In fact the opposite is true. In Washington DC, it is hard for the lobbyists to hide. They are there but their operations are highly visible. With remote pols, their operations would become exponentially more anonymous.
Representative democracy (ie., the parliament is a democracy, but the nation most certainly is not) is a rotten joke anyway (go read Plato's Republic to understand that even many thousands of years ago, the best thinkers dismissed the fake rule 'by the people' as a terrible system ripe for the worst forms of power-play abuse). But if this is the system you have, it is essential the elected pols are forced to operate IN PERSON in a publicly accessible chamber. Only this situation makes the best of a systemically poor idea.
Team Tony Blair, the neoliberal/fabian monster that has been running the West since Blair first gained power in the UK, desires the next stage of their Orwellian agenda- for both theatrical impact and corrupt convenience. Dribblers will be sold the move as an inevitable benefit of tech- the self same tech that is damned by blairites when it tries to emerge in educational establishments used by the children of the plebs.
PS isn't it time for another story on slashdot demonising Russia or Iran?
No, that is not the corect way to represent the people. This is see/read/do/share http://3seas.org/ a work order for government to act in accord to what the founders of the US extablished and intended. Of, for and by.... THE PEOPLE!
On the face of it, this seems reasonable. Unfortunately, people will be as distracted as you let them be.
This type of remote attendance creates a scenario where you will have the lawmaker on screen, and 10 lobbyists sitting on the other side of the camera, holding the lawmakers feet to the fire. It is not hard to imagine a Pfizer representative handing the lawmaker ready made answers as well as votes in real time as they vote for the next drug funding bill. These are not fair and transparent votes
Until lobbying is illegal, it will always be there. You can not move a lawmaker far enough away from a lobbyist. Lawmakers and lobbyists co-exist in the current system.
--
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. - James Madison
Congress already only shows up for work an average of 2 days a week, and most of that is spent talking, and now the OP wants them to work even less. How about letting the average America worker out in 2 days a week first, and then maybe.... Congress has a lot of work to do. They need to get busy.
Under emergency situations, like a war or natural disaster that prevents people from meeting in D.C. or any other single location, it's generally far better to have "virtual attendance" than not be allowed to be there to debate or vote at all, even if things like access to the press and the public were not the same as it is in Washington. In a war situation, you do need to have a check-and-balance to make sure none of the "remote" representatives have been captured or are otherwise under duress.
I can also see this if a particular Congressmen has a health or other emergency that prevents him from being in his office in D.C., such as was the case with Sen. John McCain during the last few months of his life. Of course, this opens the door to people voting while too sick or too heavily medicated to make decisions.
Under normal times - and yes, I consider the current artificial crisis "normal times" for this purpose - virtual decision-making on substantive matters should be discouraged. When used outside of an extraordinary emergency, it should be allowed but only with strong safeguards to make sure the public really has "access" to their representatives.
At a minimum, the public servant should be in a place that is at least as public as Congress itself. I'm thinking a large conference room big enough for dozens of people if not hundreds, not a small office that only fits him and his staff.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I can just see the scandals, pantsless politicians who dont realize everyone can see them... And you thought Anthony Weiner had problems
why, if it wasn't for the magic spell placed on Washington DC that keeps lobbyists out who knows what would happen.
The reason this is being discussed is that left wing congress folks like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez who don't sell out have a hard time affording life in DC and back home at the same time. The pressure is there on purpose, it's to make them crack and sell out for the money needed for a decent living. $174k sounds like a lot of money until you're trying to maintain two households, one of them in an expensive city.
On a side note this is also why Ted Cruz started pushing Term limits. The pro corporate right wing don't care of they cycle out a bought and paid for politician every 8 years. But getting rid of long time senators like Bernie or preventing AOC from getting her sea legs and passing Medicare for All? That's priceless.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Looking forward to someone hacking this new legislative voting system and passing or rejecting whatever they want.
No, Congress should not be able to work in their underwear, anymore.
The proposal seems to focus upon attending Congress from their home district. That's the wrong direction. Sitting in the home district office and telecommuting to Congress means that both sides are basically in fixed locations. Wouldn't it be better to be fixed in a location in Congress and be able to telecommute "to" various locations in the home district, seeing many constituents on their home turf?
" Congressional members are "sick and tired of Washington and don't want to show up anymore to vote." "
You signed up for this job, either do it without whining about it or GTFO and let someone else do it instead.
Don't show up to do the job ? Strip them of all retirement packages and boot them the fuck out.
You know. . . . . what happens to the rest of us when we decide not to show up for work and do the damn job.
Personally, I think most of America is sick and tired of the politicians not doing their jobs at all, regardless of where they sit.
The greatest thing that could ever happen to this country would be to replace anyone with more than eight years of Congressional
service with new blood because, let's face it, the career politicians ARE the cancer that is destroying this country.
All executive departments except State need to move HQs to other parts of the county. The reasons are obvious. Continuity of government, distribution of overpaid bureaucratic jobs and moving closer to the the places being managed.
The above should have read, "The top two current senators in terms of money taken from super pacs are from Nevada and North Dakota." Not Montana, but North Dakota.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The telecommuting fad seems to be fading, which is good. People are finally starting to understand that there are, indeed, benefits to being in the same physical proximity with coworkers. So that's a "no" answer to the original question, since government will presumably work better -- the machinations of government, the behind-the-scenes interactions and negotiations -- when people can bump into each other at lunch, or meet for drinks, etc.
Then, there's the very deeply steeped idea that the US Federal and State governments should be accessible to all. There should be no barriers. If someone wanted to witness a public debate, then they should be able to do so with an absolute minimum of requirements. Needing any kind of equipment, including internet access, a computer, a screen, a mobile phone, ANYTHING, is a barrier, as there are people who do not have them. So "no" on that count as well, since public debate needs to be witnessed by people with first-hand direct experience, and that's not possible if the debate -- or even only part of the debate -- is available only electronically.
Finally, when someone has a job to perform, making that job difficult in some way, especially time, means that they are less likely to squander the privilege of holding office. If a representative has to travel 6 hours each way to get to Washington, then I'll bet they will minimize their travel time and make sure they use their time in DC and in their home office, more wisely than if it took no effort to be in DC at all. Think of how important an individual long-distance phone call was, and how well-chosen the words were, when every second carried a cost, as compared to the blather we get now with free long distance. So, "no" for the third time, because when a resource is precious, it gets used more wisely.
Call me a luddite (you wouldn't be the first), but there are distinct benefits to face-to-face interaction.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
Deepfakes: https://www.google.com/search?...
Adobe voice fakes : https://www.google.com/search?...
But I guess a couple of hardware tokens (issued, say, to the member and his aide) could be used to authenticate the session.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to hold Twitch town-halls. So I say go for it
$174k is almost exactly the median household income of the DC zip code closest to the Capitol plus the median household income of Queens. If half the people in both zip codes can figure out how to live there on less income than she receives, so can she.
she doesn't. She lives in her district, Queens NY. Try maintaining _two_ households with two sets of bills sometime. I did it for a time while waiting to move family up to where I was after taking a new job and it hurt.
They system is rigged against poor and working class in a million little ways. This is one of them.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I wouldn't be opposed to this on an occasional basis, but not as a primary means. As others have pointed out, there's a benefit to being in close proximity to others. Plus, if you think the behavior of Congress is infantile now, just imagine if it were run like a Reddit subreddit or god forbid an IRC channel.
The people are taking commercial flights that would be going with or without them, so the wasted energy argument doesn't really hold up either. Only if they're chartering private planes do you have yourself the basis for an argument.
Then rich congressmen would not even have to leave their lounge chair on the beach in Puerto Rico! They could lube up with suntan oil between votes. That's the life!
Where in history has a judge been able to vote from elsewhere than court?
The Russians already got them voted to their job, no need to allow them to use fake videos to actually also vote on the laws.
...online.
And we need an Internet Human Rights court.
And we need to crowd fund public projects so the people maintain ownership of their works - instead of taxes!
Hurrah!
- Phillip @=}-~
not just able, but that's the way it's done, 100% of the time so that congressmen are always in their home districts and not hunkering in backrooms in secret in DC
it would give their constituents greater access (and representatives were always supposed to be highly available to them) and make life more difficult for professional lobbyists since now they'd have to visibly travel to all these places to see them
My district replaced a congressman in 2018 who only held 2 in-person town hall meetings in his last 2 terms in congress. If giving them remote access to their duties in DC would lead to them spending more time with their constituents - not just their sponsors and handlers - then I'd favor it. Otherwise if they're just doing it to avoid interacting with their colleagues in person then no.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The distance allows Representatives to safely consider larger issues, issues that are not necessarily local issues, or issues not to the immediate and obvious benefit of their constituents. Distance allows cooling down on hot issues because the Representatives are not immediately available. They can be too much in contact with their constituents.
E Proelio Veritas.
I was getting worried that nobody cared about the actual process of representative governing. They were elected to keep the country running by representing the people in their district. It means meeting with other district leaders to speak in behalf the people you represent. It does not mean isolating yourself in your fortress and only meeting with those that bribe you with flowery prose and gold.
"... while giving them more time with their constituents." Because who couldn't wait to spend more time with people who can't compromise?
But, if they're not all in one convenient location, how are the Lobbyist supposed to easily spread their bribe... uh, "campaign contributions" to the Congress Critters?
Oh, that gives me an idea - don't let it be "from anywhere". Install secure communications hardware at the rep's district office and make it the only location from which they can act as present other than the actual chambers.
I don't know if it would work, or be a good idea at all, but we'd be fools to not consider it.
Also, thanks to technology.... a majority of the representative functions could likely be automated.
For example: instead of having a human representative cast the vote ----- there could be a machine which acts
as a digital or "virtual" representative to cast whichever vote a majority of the constituents have decided.
When it comes to drafting laws and dealing with investigations, hearings, or other issues: instead of
constituents having to permanently appoint 1 person to serve as an office for years - the people could elect a
"candidate pool" on a number of issues, and the pool work together to come up with proposed legislative actions ----
whichever ones get the most "Likes" from constituents become part of the agenda, then when the item comes up to agenda,
the constituents electronically vote to decide which person will be their representative for debating and drafting the bill covering
a specific issue, then the students will accept or reject their work using Thumbs Up and Thumbs Down options.
The reality is that that virtualization is the way the world is headed. Looking to the old days when all the politicians in DC knew each other is nice, but it's not going to happen again. The problem is not politics, but simply growth in technology and fundamental changes in how our society communicates. It would be better to figure out how teleconferencing can be used effectively in politics than to try to maintain politics as a separate sub-culture. If politicians don't talk with us and with each other in ways we recognize as "normal", we will lose trust in them and the system. The floor debates, office meetings, the way their offices are laid out, the way their staff is organized: these are all approaches to management and consensus building that would be normal and familiar 100 years ago in industry, local government, and non-profits. Today, no one sets up a new organization this way. Local governments don't work this way anymore. Eventually the national government will change too.
Let take this one step further and virtualize politicians. I mean they don't really represent the average joe these days so using online voting techniques we could actually do away with IRL politicians saving a ton of money and probably getting a better outcome for the citizens.
The only reason why they don't is that they're too stupid to use electronic systems, and if they needed to buy systems, someone would sell them a broken piece of shit and they'd pay a couple billion dollars for it. They're fucking morons.