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."

Comments

Um you missed something

[110010001000]

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.

Re:Um you missed something

[110010001000]

The Washington Press corps aren't a watchdog. They go to the same parties as the politicians.

The floor debate is BS

[known_coward_69]

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

Re:The floor debate is BS

[Pollux]

The actual floor debate you fall asleep to on C-SPAN is BS and a tiny part of the process

I disagree. The floor debate you fall asleep to on C-SPAN has nothing to do with the process. It's senators grandstanding to a camera, nothing more. To quote this New Yorker article...

In general, when senators give speeches on the floor, their colleagues aren’t around, and the two or three who might be present aren’t listening...The only people who pay attention to a speech are the Senate stenographers...The Senate chamber is an intimate room where men and women go to talk to themselves for the record.

Deals get cut in offices, legislation gets filtered by committee, votes get gathered by the whips, and nothing gets to the floor for a vote without party leader approval. Generally, the only time senators gather in the chamber is to conduct the vote. Once it's done, they vacate.

Personally, I think this process is one reason why government is so divided today. Our congressional leaders don't work together in the very chamber where they should be conducting business. There's no rapport, no discussion, no construction of trust necessary to build consensus. Since the vote is the only time -left- where they are required to gather together, I'd hate to see voting by proxy be allowed, further distancing one another apart from the process.

Re:The floor debate is BS

[Mandrel]

While I agree that debate chambers are boondoggles, made obsolete by technology, I'm all for shutting them down. If you want politicians to interact, have them attend a mess hall for lunch, where seating randomly changes each month. And if you want accountability, broadcast meetings held in offices, where the real decisions are made.

could, yes, should, no

[Hugh Jorgen]

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.

Re:So long as it's 100% secure comms, why not?

[ShanghaiBill]

please provide an example of a "100% secure comms" in current production.

Secure voting is easy. Anonymous voting is also easy.

It is doing BOTH that is hard.

Security for congressional floor votes is easy because their votes are public knowledge.

Re:Don't stop there

[mentil]

Is 30,000 really the 'magic number'? Has any research been done on if citizen representation is improved by having 1 rep per 30,000 versus 1 rep for 300,000? Could district area/dimensions be more important than the population it contains? The real "while we're at it" should be nonpartisan redistricting, to slay the Gerrymander (which will probably require a Constitutional amendment).