They're making sure they can vote... but yet no one has worked to make sure all of the American people can vote safely (Read also: mail in ballots for everyone).
US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies
11–20 of 311 posts
Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies
#12The Senate is a deliberative body, and its primary work requires debate . Already too much gets done behind closed doors and outside the public eye. Dispensing with even the pretense of open debate is somewhat concerning.
This is what gets glossed over in the quest for soundbites. There are actual legitimate arguments against this sort of thing, but they get overlooked because SENATOR X AND HIS BUDDIES ARE JUST TRYING TO OBSTRUCT A SENSIBLE PLAN!
Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies
#13I have never seen a compelling argument for why this should not be allowed.
The main reason is political: It would let senators stay in their home districts and campaign for their entire time in office, making it easier to neglect their duties to write and pass legislation. Politicians may be more motivated to work together on issues affecting the country in DC together. Staying in their home district could be a distraction because of the competing interests of being re-elected.
In general, I think these remote voting proposals should include a time limitation. That there is some "trigger" when they take effect, and they need re-authorization every 30 days until the incident is over.
Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies
#14I have never seen a compelling argument for why this should not be allowed.
The Senate (really all of congress, but especially the Senate) is supposed to be a deliberative body. There's supposed to be discussion and debate of any measure put forth, convincing others of the right and wrong in a given bill. This is why there's a filibuster, quorum rules, etc.
If you set up a system where Senators can live at home, Zoom in to cast a vote, and otherwise not engage with other Senators, it doesn't really fulfill the "coming together and hashing things out" aspect of congress. It's a bunch of polarized Senators staying polarized, now without even human contact.
(and it's fair to say "we're basically there already", but it's also fair to say "but we're not quite there, and we should preserve and foster whatever bipartisan interaction we have". I just don't think it's a no-brainer.)
Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies
#15They're making sure they can vote... but yet no one has worked to make sure all of the American people can vote safely (Read also: mail in ballots for everyone).
The constitution leaves a lot of details about voting to the states. This would probably require an amendment. A power grab like that from the federal government would probably be turned down by even blue states, especially considering the current president.
Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies
#16The Senate is a deliberative body, and its primary work requires debate . Already too much gets done behind closed doors and outside the public eye. Dispensing with even the pretense of open debate is somewhat concerning.
This is what gets glossed over in the quest for soundbites. There are actual legitimate arguments against this sort of thing, but they get overlooked because SENATOR X AND HIS BUDDIES ARE JUST TRYING TO OBSTRUCT A SENSIBLE PLAN!
Plausible deniability is pure political power.
Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies
#17I have never seen a compelling argument for why this should not be allowed.
The main reason is political: It would let senators stay in their home districts and campaign for their entire time in office, making it easier to neglect their duties to write and pass legislation. Politicians may be more motivated to work together on issues affecting the country in DC together. Staying in their home district could be a distraction because of the competing interests of being re-elected. In general,…
OTOH staying in their home districts means they may be more attentive to the needs of their home districts, and less likely to be swayed by pressure from the corridors of washington
Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies
#18They're making sure they can vote... but yet no one has worked to make sure all of the American people can vote safely (Read also: mail in ballots for everyone).
The constitution leaves a lot of details about voting to the states. This would probably require an amendment. A power grab like that from the federal government would probably be turned down by even blue states, especially considering the current president.
It doesn’t need to be a power-grab (“We’re taking over the election to make sure it’s done right”). In all likelihood it would be some sort of funding incentive (“If you resolve to do vote-by-mail, we’ll give you the money to hire people and buy equipment to do it, and even throw in some money for infrastructure as a cherry on top”).
Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies
#19Off topic since this is about senators, but to nip a possible related thread in the bud, an important reason why remote voting for citizens is a bad idea is that it can enable massive scale vote manipulation through schemes to buy or otherwise influence votes.
In the privacy of one's home, outside a controlled voting booth, the problem is exacerbated, counterintuitively. A voter at home or in another uncontrolled setting could follow instructions for how to vote and then use a camera, or witnesses who are in on the scheme, to prove that they had voted a certain way, at the behest of others. In a traditional voting booth situation, where nobody else can see or verify how you voted, this kind of manipulation is not so easy to do on a mass scale.
Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies
#20I fear that if we do this, and Trump wins again, people will not trust the outcome of the election... I'm not quite sure what happens to this country, if people don't think the elections are legitimate. We almost ran into it with Kerry Vs Bush. But people's feelings are amplified when it comes to Trump.