Why, in the age of the internets, does a Senator have to be in D.C. to vote?

[jgraz]

Obama's catching a bit of heat for missing the Kyle/Lieberman vote, but nobody seems to be asking the obvious question: why did he have to miss it at all. Seriously, can't the tubes handle a few dozen secure roll call votes? Hell, he could have just phoned Harry Reid and given him his vote. It's not like someone is going to be able to hack it without the senators noticing.

[NYVet]

1. Pomp and Circumstance...

I have to agree. The President has secure communications wherever he goes, our Congress critters should be able to do the same thing via video conference or something similar

[King Coal]

3. You can't vote on a series of tubes.

[FiveGoodMen]

5. Why not? I vote FOR the series of tubes. In fact, I want MORE tubes!

[MADem]

2. Then there'd be no "Congress"--there'd be a bunch of scattered elected officials

phoning it in.

I'm sorry, I don't agree with phoning it in.

You see, it's a time-honored, well-valued, and understood political device to miss a vote. The Senators and Representatives know what it is, and most of them like having it handy--just in case.

Almost every Senator or Rep has done it, or thought about doing it. If you don't like the idea or the issue addressed by the legislation, and can't say so, either because it's political suicide or makes you look like a mean asshole, you just miss your flight...AWWWWW, gee.

[jgraz]

4. Exactly my point -- why should this give them political cover for cowardice?

Allowing remote voting would make it much harder to pretend to miss a vote. They could still be required to be in D.C. for debates and meeting. It's not like they'd be "working from home" for the majority of their term.


On the other hand, what would be so bad about that? Having your representative always within driving distance would go a long way toward making sure that we were actually being represented.

[MADem]

6. It's not always cowardice. In fact, it usually isn't.

It's being politically astute.

See, I don't blame Obama at all for doing what he did. With his base, he was boxed in. He had no choice.

He did some political parsing with that NON-vote, and as a result, he has both cover and deniability.

His ardent uberlefty supporters, the ones who like the IDEA of him without really looking closely at his actual record can say "SEE--Obama is a PEACEMONGER, an ardent antiwar type, who didn't vote for WAR with IRAN!!" (Even though that isn't what the vote was about at all -- but hey, don't let facts, semantics, or even reality interfere with a good dab of righteous indignation) ...!

And if Iran goes batshit crazy and sets off a suitcase bomb in Times Square, Obama can ALSO say "I didn't vote AGAINST war with IRAN!!!! I was UNAVOIDABLY DELAYED due to campaigning!!!"

It gives him wiggle room on a touchy subject that has been frequently and often deliberately misinterpreted.

I mean, really--why NOT? That was a posturing vote, it signified nothing.

The ones to change the rules about how votes are taken would be those who would be affected by the rules. I don't think for a second they'll upset the status quo!

It's a tool, and they like having it handy.

[jgraz]

7. You just described a perfect example of cowardice, IMHO

If Obama really needs that kind of cover, he's not qualified to be president. (BTW, I don't think he does)

[MADem]

10. No, that's not cowardice. At all. It's being politically intelligent.

It's not that much different from triangulation, or running to the center, and then leading right or left. Or running right or left, and leading from the center.

It's POLITICS. It isn't cowardice.

Purists don't last long, as a rule. Politicians do. People 'say' they don't like the political aspect, but then they go and eat those purists alive.

Obama would have found his 'pals' on the far right busy opening up a can of rightwing shit if he'd voted against, and he knows it. He gets the same effect that he wanted from his base AND gets to avoid that kind of scrutiny simply by managing to stay away on the day.

LBJ was flat-out outstanding at this kind of shit. As Majority Leader, he'd make sure guys stayed away if they couldn't survive voting the "wrong" way, or he needed a specific result that could only be assured by one of his caucus taking a powder. And he was a very strong president. No one questioned his qualifications, and he played politics FAR better than anyone--from either party--in the race today.

[CK_John]

8. If calling in or using the net how do we know the voters is really a member of Congress and

that the voter is voting without a gun pointed at them or their family. If you want the job, do it.

[jgraz]

9. Uh...how do you know a Senator isn't being blackmailed now?

:crazy: