DVD Talk
Do You Favor Absentee, Remote, or Proxy Voting in the House & the Senate? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Do You Favor Absentee, Remote, or Proxy Voting in the House & the Senate?


classicman2
05-22-08, 03:30 PM
I don't.

Dimension X
05-22-08, 03:34 PM
No. For the reason I gave in the other thread.

Red Dog
05-22-08, 03:35 PM
Absolutely. Here was the inspiration for this thread....

I've been accused of having a horse & buggy mentality but I for the life of me cannot understand why they have an in-person requirement for casting a vote. A SCt Justice doesn't have to be at an oral argument to participate in a decision - mainly because they realize that the oral argument is mainly show; much like floor debates - the legislators are hamming for the cameras. The President doesn't have to physically be in Washington/WH to sign a bill into law or execute orders. These legislators aren't reading the bills to begin with. Senate filibusters aren't even real filibusters anymore. Nobody's mind is going to be changed with by a floor speech. If minds are changed, it's happening off the floor. So what's the point? We have e-mail, blackberrys, cell phones, fax machines, instant messaging, etc. Let's move into the 21st century and allow remote voting.


If you're a no, can you explain why?

orangecrush
05-22-08, 03:48 PM
I do, just so it removes the excuses of travel from voting on an unpleasant issue.

Venusian
05-22-08, 03:53 PM
I think we could end up with a system where people are only in Washington for parties or something and all the voting/debating/arm twisting is done from the congressman's home state where they are busy campaigning year round

Dimension X
05-22-08, 03:55 PM
If you're a no, can you explain why?
Okay. Here's what I said in the other thread:

If they allowed remote voting, most of them would leave it to some underling to vote for them (or blame it on an underling or on the system when their vote wasn't popular). At least if they show up and vote we know who to blame (or praise).

As dork pointed out in that thread, a situation similar to what I described (where an underling was blamed) has been seen recently.

wishbone
05-22-08, 04:11 PM
Why could they not incorporate some kind of video conferencing (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns669/networking_solutions_solution_segment_home.html)? If they can set this up in the Iraq desert surely they can set this up for a senator on the move within the continental US or abroad.

Th0r S1mpson
05-22-08, 04:17 PM
Yes, but with strict limitations. Only a certain percentage of votes, or with prior approval.

Red Dog
05-22-08, 04:30 PM
Why could they not incorporate some kind of video conferencing (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns669/networking_solutions_solution_segment_home.html)? If they can set this up in the Iraq desert surely they can set this up for a senator on the move within the continental US or abroad.


Excellent point. Many private companies and government agencies utilize VTC.

Ranger
05-22-08, 04:54 PM
I do, just so it removes the excuses of travel from voting on an unpleasant issue.
Yep.

kvrdave
05-22-08, 07:18 PM
I have no problem with them not physically being in DC to vote.

classicman2
05-22-08, 11:23 PM
Then you would have no problem with them just staying at home in their own states & districts and never coming to Washington D.C. to conduct the business of the country?

I assume you would also have no problem with the continuation of the payment of their salaries.

Red Dog
05-23-08, 07:17 AM
They can't conduct "business of the country" via electronic communication? :hscratch: Surely many aspects of their business is already conducted in this fashion.

classicman2
05-23-08, 07:25 AM
You've told the forum it's all show, and doesn't mean anything.

Why do they even need to come to Washington?

starman9000
05-23-08, 07:28 AM
Isn't he arguing that they don't?

Bandoman
05-23-08, 07:33 AM
Then you would have no problem with them just staying at home in their own states & districts and never coming to Washington D.C. to conduct the business of the country?


Yeah, God forbid that they actually live with the people they serve and see firsthand what effect their policies have on their constituents.

I have no problem with remote voting. I dislike proxy voting because it gives an air of "plausible deniability" to those who are challenged on their votes.

Red Dog
05-23-08, 07:35 AM
You've told the forum it's all show, and doesn't mean anything.

Why do they even need to come to Washington?


Thank you.

Red Dog
05-23-08, 07:37 AM
Yeah, God forbid that they actually live with the people they serve and see firsthand what effect their policies have on their constituents.

I have no problem with remote voting. I dislike proxy voting because it gives an heir of "plausible deniability" to those who are challenged on their votes.


Exactly, it's supposed to be about constituent service, so wouldn't more time spent in their district or state be a good thing? When they are in DC, it becomes far more about party and lobbyist service.

classicman2
05-23-08, 07:48 AM
[QUOTE=Bandoman: I have no problem with remote voting. I dislike proxy voting because it gives an air of "plausible deniability" to those who are challenged on their votes.[/QUOTE]

The same thing can occur with remote voting.

There have been instances in the House when members gave their 'vote cards' to other members and staff members to vote for them.

wendersfan
05-23-08, 08:58 AM
I wonder how it would affect lobbying if members of Congress didn't have to visit/be in/reside in DC very much? Breaking it down, I can think of the following things that take up their time:

Voting on the floor
Debating on the floor
Attending committee meetings, voting in them, etc.
Drafting legislation
Making "deals" - negotiating, arm twisting, etc.
Constituency service
"Fact-finding" outside of committee hearings

Many of these things could be done without the members ever setting foot in DC. Some would be much harder to do. I guess it all breaks down by how much you want Congress to do, and in what areas. That means for some, this is an easy question to answer. For others, not so much. Obviously it would be nice if a Senator could vote on the passage of a bill while at the same time not leaving the hospital bedside of a spouse, parent, or child. On the other, we pay these people to do a job and it would be nice to see them show up at the office a bit more. I doubt it if my employer would like it if I took most of the summer off, with pay, to look for a more prestigious and higher paying job, even if I could telecommute and get most of my duties accomplished.

Bandoman
05-23-08, 09:14 AM
I have no problem with remote voting. I dislike proxy voting because it gives an air of "plausible deniability" to those who are challenged on their votes.

The same thing can occur with remote voting.

Not if they have to say "I vote yes on H.R.1034" or "I vote no on H.R.1034" instead of just pressing a button. Maybe they would need to enter a code to access the sytem and then speak to a clerk who records the vote? I'm sure there are myriad ways the voting could be done to make sure that the vote is accurately recorded.

Red Dog
05-23-08, 09:19 AM
Not if they have to say "I vote yes on H.R.1034" or "I vote no on H.R.1034" instead of just pressing a button. Maybe they would need to enter a code to access the sytem and then speak to a clerk who records the vote? I'm sure there are myriad ways the voting could be done to make sure that the vote is accurately recorded.


That's the way I would envision it happening.

dork
05-23-08, 09:30 AM
On the other, we pay these people to do a job and it would be nice to see them show up at the office a bit more.
Yeah, I don't see why it's up to me to make it easier for these guys to run for re-election. Let them do that on their own time.

crazyronin
05-23-08, 09:58 AM
Not if they have to say "I vote yes on H.R.1034" or "I vote no on H.R.1034" instead of just pressing a button. Maybe they would need to enter a code to access the sytem and then speak to a clerk who records the vote? I'm sure there are myriad ways the voting could be done to make sure that the vote is accurately recorded.

Needs more boilerplate to give less weasel room.

To the Bandoman Cave!

classicman2
05-23-08, 10:03 AM
Well - the Red Dog crowd will be happy. Next week is the Memorial Day recess. Congress won't be in session. ;)

btw: Do you see how time consuming Bandoman's idea (speaking to a clerk) would be in the House?

If you're going to do that - why not just return to the old way of voting - the way the Senate currently does it?

btw: They don't press a button now.

J

Bandoman
05-23-08, 10:36 AM
btw: Do you see how time consuming Bandoman's idea (speaking to a clerk) would be in the House?


30 seconds per phone call to vote x 435 = 3.6 hours. That's if there was only one clerk who could take calls.

classicman2
05-23-08, 10:46 AM
You can have a voice vote (like the Senate) in that amount of time. Then you know it's correct.

Bandoman
05-23-08, 10:51 AM
Yes, but you were talking about the House. It would take much less time in the Senate.

classicman2
05-23-08, 11:17 AM
As long as the chair, in both the House & the Senate, have the discretion as to how long to hold open the vote - things aren't really going to change - time wise.

grundle
05-24-08, 05:36 PM
These legislators aren't reading the bills to begin with.



Legislators who have not read every word of a bill should not be allowed to vote for it.

A president who had not read every world of a bill should not be allowed to sign it.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0