Periodically
the tech savvy members of Legislative bodies want to introduce Technological
changes to the operation of Government.
The House of Representatives introduced the voting score board so that a
vote would take minutes rather than hours.
Previously voting required calling the roll once and, then again, for
those members who missed the first time through. So that speeds up the voting.
Before this change members were loath to require members to come to the floor
to say aye or nay on an amendment unless it has real import.
After
electronic voting began, creative members began to introduce many more
amendments, many of which had no real impact but gave people a way to show that
they had done something. People back home only knew that a member had
introduced an amendment.
Amendments
were introduced to embarrass or frustrate the sponsors of a bill or to force
individual members to vote on things that could be used against them in the
next election. The amendment process on the floor became partisan warfare.
The Speaker
pro Tempo re of the House would bunch the votes together so that members only
had to walk over to the floor a few times a day to cast a lot of useless votes
on things that had no chance to pass.
But someone got credit for raising an issue. These were “15 minute”
votes which meant that everyone had 15 minutes to get to the floor and cast
their votes.
No member in
the House is more important than himself.
So why should I vote early when the slugs of the house won’t be there in
15 minutes. Some members assumed votes would take 20-30 minutes so there was no
need to get off the phone or abandon constituents or lobbyists in the office
when the bell rang. Voting would get
longer and longer as procrastinators or simply rude members delayed 435 people
in doing their job. Speakers got irritated and periodically gave speeches about
courtesy and stated that all votes would be over at 17-19 minutes. Some members
got aggravated when they arrived to late to be counted.
The second strategy the speaker had was to
declare the second and subsequent votes in a bunch as 5-minute votes. Even a 5-minute vote turned in to 6-8 minutes
because people began to get on phone calls in the cloakroom and would try to
stay as long as possible on the call.
The next
strategy to shorten these long useless voting exercises was to reduce the
voting to two minutes. Sounds efficient but Democracy is slow and messy and
does not work efficiently. Dictatorships
or Kings or Czars are very efficient. But when we say we want democracy you can
only have so much efficiency.
Why is the
time important? I cast 2500 votes per
session. I am of average intelligence and a pretty quick study but
there is no way any human can keep 2500 things clear in his or her mind. I had to rely on staff in my office or on the
committee to tell me the issue before I could cast a vote. I usually knew as I walked to the floor what
I thought the proper vote was but not infrequently, I looked up at the
scoreboard and saw a red light(NO) next to the name of someone I trusted. I needed a few minutes to find that person
and ask why they were casting that surprising vote. I often learn something I had not known, and
I changed my vote. 5-minute votes gave me a chance to find them among the 435
members on the floor. 2-minute votes
were impossible to verify or reverse.
Every new
class to the Congress raises the idea of voting electronically from their
office. The word Congress means a coming together. It is seen as the means by
which the people can discuss and come to a consensus which is usually a
compromise. To let individual members sitting alone away from their colleagues
decide how to vote begins to tear the fabric of trying to reach a consensus in
a democracy.
Jim McGovern of Massachusetts has been given the job of analyzing the next step in
rending the consensus building fabric: Voting from one’s district. All members
can sit in their bathrobes in the Bronx or Seattle or Fargo and vote on issues
that are presented to them as an up or down vote.
On what basis
will they decide? What the leadership sends out as information may not be the whole
story. Those who write history are the ones who control story. Examine any
school textbook to find out about the histories of minorities over time in the USA. I am sure if Native Americans wrote our history
for public education. we would have a different picture of the western
expansion in the USA during the 19th century. Assuming the finest motives, should the
Speaker or the Majority leader be expected to present an issue in the broadest
perspective. We can use technology to publish the bill. Who will answer any
questions in what forum or format. Video
conferences have some limitations as we are discovering as the whole world is
trying do business or teach school over Zoom Platforms. One does not have to be
a Luddite to be worried about the likelihood of reaching a democratic Consensus
without people meeting and discussing or arguing or questioning.
We are
entering a time of great change. We are in a period where no one trusts that
others are protecting themselves or their neighbors. Social isolation has been
ordered by governments backed by police enforcement. Hopefully this situation
will not go on forever. In this time of panic, we must not give up the only way
to run a democracy.
I remember
2001 on 9/11 when a fourth plane was headed for either the Capitol or the White
House and went down in Pennsylvamia because of the quick action and bravery of
the passengers. A lone member of
Congress began talking about a method to reestablish a functioning Congress if
the entire elected body or a large portion were destroyed by a disaster of any
kind. Few members wanted to contemplate such an event and Brian Baird’s idea
remains unanswered.
Today we are
faced with a similar dilemma. How should
we approach a threat to all the Congress? Should we
empower the leadership to present proposals to the members electronically to
vote without enough time to consult with one another.
Putting all
the power in a small group to propose legislation and call for a vote is called
a junta. No member should feel comfortable giving up the sacred trust of his or
her office to a small committee that can’t be questioned. This decision will be key as to whether we keep
a democracy or not. Maybe matters of appropriation for existing programs can be
voted on remotely but deciding policy requires being locked in a hot room in
Philadelphia as they did in 1789.
A quick Google search reveals that Jefferson in writing the Ordinance of 1784, which
would have prohibited slavery in the West, fell one vote short of prohibiting Slavery
in the new territories after 1800. A delegate from New Jersey got sick and
missed the vote. Think about the power of your knowledgeable vote. The people
did not elect the congress to be rubber stamps for a President or the
legislative leadership, no matter how good or bad they are.
