Why Can't Congress Tele-vote?

Okay, I know why. It's because when the Constitution was written, the only practical way to have votes was to have Congressmen show up in person and cast their votes. And so, in grand tradition, House and Senate rules maintain this practice.

But today, it's hardly necessary that a Senator actually be present in order to register a timely, secure vote. We could set up a teleconference, or any number of secured networks in order to ensure only the actual Congressional member voted.

Think of the advantages: rather than flying cross country every week, Senators could actually stay close to their constituents for blocks of time, meeting with them and discussing issues with them. Those on the campaign trail could still vote. They could spend more time with their families and less time on aircraft.

They would be able to do their job perhaps not surrounded by Washington lobbyists, at least not all the time.

There would be no excuses of "Oh, I wanted to vote on that bill, but I wasn't in DC." No surprise votes where key members have to drop everything to return to Washington.

I imagine many people wedded to the current Way Things Are would object. If people are in town, they can be grabbed for dinner-and-arm-twisting. People out of town can avoid all that.

Maybe I'm just bitter about all the Senators and Representatives having to skip YearlyKos to vote on FISA. But I think, especially with climate change and conservation issues coming to the fore, that the time has come to embrace telecommuting technology.

So why don't they?

•  Congress certainly needs

  better contingency planning in case The Capitol and/or Washington, DC get put out of commission for any reason (flu epidemic, terrorism, etc.)

  Many old-timers have observed that in the days before Congressmembers flew home every weekend, they all socialized together more and had much more cordial relations........There were more dinner parties where issues of common interest were discussed and ideas exchanged...ideas about how to benefit the whole country!

  by LNK on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:28:54 PM PDT

•  A Great Idea

  Let's have no more excuses, and lots more time with the Beltway-disadvantaged!

  by Tybalt on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:29:11 PM PDT

•  BECAUSE...

  They're paid to be members of Congress...NOT to friggin campaign all the damned time.

  I think we need to have a rule - if you're in Congress and want to run for president, quit your term.

  by Sharon Jumper on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:29:30 PM PDT

  •  Agreed about the campaign thing

    BUT... don't you think we would be better represented in Congress if our Representatives and Senators lived at home in the district/state they're representing rather than stuck in the alternative reality of DC?

    by Marc in CA on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:38:21 PM PDT

    •  to say nothing of the carbon emissions

      of trucking back and forth to Washington.
      Bill Clinton said last year that a lot of the crabby behaviour by congress is at least partly because of all the traveling.

      by dotcommodity on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:27:14 PM PDT

  •  Yes!

    I think this is the right thing, but I'm not holding my breath.

    Leelee

    by leeleeFL on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:44:49 PM PDT

•  It would be just as easy to have a

  proxy vote, by an assistant or someone on site.

  I think the Congress is still behind the times as far as this goes.  Concerned for security and such.

  Plus, a good deal of our congress critters would rarely show up if they could get away with it. IMO

  by second gen on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:29:36 PM PDT

•  Hell, I think WE should

  be able to tele-vote!  You know what?  Once the system gets worked out, why not just permit the electorate to vote on bills before Congress?

  by Montague on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:31:17 PM PDT

  •  Eeek

    We're not made for direct democracy.  There's too few people that vote and too few people that would actually know what they were voting on.  Its a nightmare here in California.  People fall for cleverly worded propositions, sometimes voting opposite of how they intended.  The millions that have to be spent just to keep people from voting poorly... I can't imagine it on a national scale.

    by Marc in CA on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:43:12 PM PDT

    •  Having lived in California for 18 years

      I'm pretty familiar with the propositions.  You're right - it never works out terribly well.  My favorite one was when the citizens voted over 2/3 for something (and the threshold was 2/3 and we went OVER the threshold), but then the government WENT AND DID THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE CITIZENS HAD VOTED FOR AND PASSED.

      Makes you wanna give up.

      by Montague on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:55:01 PM PDT

  •  scary, and requires a change to Constitution

    Congress is written into the Constitution, direct voting isn't.  You'll need at least an Amendment, which would likely end up include repealing Row v.  Wade or something.

    Back in the `80s, someone I knew was discussing voter registration. They had said something along the lines of "why can't people register at the polling places? A lot of the people I know aren't aware of the election until the day before, so they can't register in time"  Too which I replied, "do you really want someone who doesn't know an election is casting a vote based on the amount of study and thought they've given it?"

    She was a bit annoyed with me, but later apologized.  Turned out that she'd managed to get several of those not-registered people to register in time and then vote.  Turned out that out of 8 people, 4 had voted for Reagen and 2 had wanted to vote for LaRouche (they gave us some stuff at the airport and it made sense) but he wasn't on the ballot. Carefully consider the last 7 years, and general public opinion during that time.  Do you think things would have been any better with direct voting?

    An alternative to direct democracy, voting on every bill, that has been suggested is to allow people to state the general budget areas the want their taxes spent on.  Don't like military buildups? Don't allocate much if any to purchasing and maintaining.  It also presents the wealthy with a conundrum - if they want to government to do something, they need to help fund it, which means paying taxes into that area of expenditure.

    by wondering if on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:47:43 PM PDT

    •  I was teasing, you know

      I think those damn congress critters SHOULD have to show up to vote.  Keep them in DC, I say, where they do less damage.

      by Montague on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:52:52 AM PDT

•  George H.W. Bush

  When he came into left the White House, they still had an old fashioned phone jack switchboard, like the kind Lily Tomlin used with her delightful Ernestine the Operator character.

  It wasn't until Clinton came in that they started having stuff like e-mail.  Those guys in Washington can certainly be behind the curve on more stuff than getting out of Iraq!

  by Land of Enchantment on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:34:49 PM PDT

•  Tip jar

  Having spent more than enough time on cross-country airline trips, I know that past a critical mass, they do not make me a better person in any way.

  by elfling on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:45:06 PM PDT

  •  it's an idea

    they need to be able to speak to all of their colleagues too, and hang out with them outside of the chambers.  

    by jlms qkw on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:56:55 PM PDT

    •  Nothing would stop them

      From being in DC if they chose, and indeed, probably they should, much of the time.

      But, if they have to be out, I think they should be able to vote. Maybe you only allow a certain number of remote votes.

      by elfling on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:11:38 PM PDT

  •  Actually, I want Obama and Clinton in DC.

    Right Now!

    They are after all seated and elected members of the Senate.

    by JugOPunch on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:32:38 PM PDT

•  No more recess appointments, heehee

  Someone could just not log off and then Congress would be in session 24/7, huzzah.

  by auntiebembem on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:18:17 PM PDT

•  Because you need deliberations and debate

  I know your going to say that the votes are predetermined in a dark, smoke-filled room, thus are pointless. Nevertheless, I want my representative to stand up and say what is important to his/ her (sic)constinuancy.

  That is why they are Our representatives. This isn't Britain where the home district doesn't matter. The country's too big for that crap.

  We do have regional concerns and, thankfully, a wide spectrum of opinions across this country and they Need to be expressed openly in our great deliberative forums.

  I want someone to speak for me that's why I vote for the candidate most likely to do that. That they are mostly Democrats just makes them easier to find on a ballot. If this were a century ago, I'd be over on the steam-powered version of the Free Republic trying to get a Republican to talk about how trusts and monopolies are ruining the nation.

  I know I may seem off-topic, but what I'm addressing is that these contrasts cannot be brought to the fore unless we put all the varying perspectives of our country together to discuss matters.

  Never mind, what would that do to the law about not arresting a Representative on their way to a vote.

  by kafkaesque on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:35:29 PM PDT