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."
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
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?
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.]
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.
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.