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

Don't stop there

[Orgasmatron]

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.

Re:Don't stop there

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be good because less reason to be corrupt.
Now they go in, don't give a fuck how corrupt they are, and collect their money.
With 10,000 how many do you need to bribe, without it getting out that you are bribing lawmakers to get your bill passed?
We would end up with people wanting to do the right thing because going in to be corrupt wouldn't be worth it.

Re:Don't stop there

[tlhIngan]

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).

Well, 1 per 30,000 means around 10,000 representatives. Imagine you're trying to buy out a law - you need to convince 5001 of them to swing your way. It's certainly going to be more expensive to do so - a million bucks only ends up being around $100 each. At that rate, the citizens of the district can easily buy them out. Even at $10M, that's $1000 each, still hard to buy people out.

At 1 per 300,000, that's 1000 representatives, not much different from what we have now, and still too easy to buy them out.

Maybe 1 per 30,000 people isn't enough, but the numbers are such that it seems buying out laws has gone from mere millions to a billion dollar activity.

Re:Um you missed something

[110010001000]

It is more appropriate for the servants to come to their masters.

This is the GOP's goal.

[shess]

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.]

Re:Mixed feelings

[dgatwood]

We already don't need the Senate, and there are already proposals on the table to push a constitutional amendment dissolving the senate.

Oh, yes, we most certainly do. Although the senate's one-state-two-votes rule is something of an anachronism, the primary purpose for the senate is very much still valid — putting the brakes on a fickle electorate by ensuring that no more than one third of that house can change in a single election cycle.

BTW, the person asking the original question got it very wrong. The question should not be whether lawmakers should be allowed to hold hearings, debate, and vote on legislation from their districts, but rather whether they should be required to do so.

The main problem with Washington, as far as I can tell, is that lobbyists and partisan think-tanks have amazing access to legislators, while the people in their districts have almost none. As far as I'm concerned, Congress should meet for one week at the start of each legislative year, for the opening gavel and choosing people for committees to replace folks who are stepping down or who have left Congress entirely. They should meet again for the closing gavel, followed by a holiday party at the end of the year. The rest of the time, they should be required to spend at least 90% of their days in their districts, among the people they represent.

The current situation is absolute madness, and has been for some time.

Good thing nobody lobbies congress directly today

[rsilvergun]

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.

No. No, and No.

[pz]

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.

Re:Wrong- slashdot shills unaccountable gov

[Immerman]

To-may-to, to-mah-to

And nobody cares, because there hasn't been a believable opportunity for change - both parties had fallen under the economic sway of many of the same people, the game was rigged, and everybody got used to just complaining about it.

But now our political parties are both seeing major upsets and instabilities forming in their power base. New and unexpected players are suddenly finding themselves in prominent positions on the national stage. Former political dropouts are starting to wake up to the fact that they're in the majority now, and can in fact make a difference.

Now, is that a momentary aberration? Or a beginning of a turning of the tide? Time will tell, but I'm hoping for the tide.