I remember seeing George Packer in the Senate press galleries as he reported this story (we both like watching senators vote, apparently) and his time well spent. However, I'd agree with Jonathan Bernstein that some of the complaints set up by Packer's narrative don't play into the most serious problems facing the Senate: "partisanship and full exploitation of the Senate rules to create obstacles to the Senate working at all." To a certain extent, the other issues he cites -- fundraising, the influence of staff, lack of personal relationships -- are just excuses made by senators who feel powerless before partisan incentives.
That said, it has become apparent that many pernicious Senate rules and norms are based on anachronistic economic and technological assumptions, which has perverted what was then state-of-the-art debate and turned it into the strange, pro forma system we have now. But what if we were setting up a legislature from scratch? There's a reason, after all, that Congress can change its rules every year. If you needed to get 100 people from around the country together to routinely deliberate and vote on pressing matters, what would you do? Some ideas:
- No more regular floor speeches. If "the Senate chamber is an intimate room where men and women go to talk to themselves for the record," let's just allow them to file their speeches (the bulk of senators already do that after a few minutes of talking) and get back to work. Take the time saved by this and require at least two-thirds of the Senate to meet every week for two hours and actually listen to each other's speeches.
- Electronic voting. Is actually having everyone show up to vote really necessary? Let members of Congress vote electronically from wherever they are. This may limit the incentive for senators to be physically present in Washington, so maybe allow electronic voting to rotate, or each senator gets three votes out of 10 from afar. It's absurd to see someone who can clearly be in communication with the institution unable to express their preferences, and that in turn delaying important decisions. Senators need Skype!
- No holds. Contra Jamelle and Bernstein, "[a] courtesy extended to senators in the days of horse travel" isn't needed anymore. Instead of allowing individual pique to a play a part in these transactions, especially in the era of the Internet, the Senate could simply set a basic limit (no final action on a nominee or vote on a bill can occur within a week of its proposal, or something) and give members the ability to waive it at will if speedy action is needed. We need the presumption to be on regular movement, and if, as Jamelle worries, Congress isn't getting the information it needs from the executive, that's why they have subpoena power and myriad other checks.
- Filibuster reform. Same story as above. Minorities can delay a vote for the purposes of debate but shouldn't be able to block it indefinitely, especially with technological advances that provide information and communication quickly and at a distance.
- Shorter, higher-quality sessions. If time-wasting filibusters and floor speeches can be struck, the natural incentive for members to stay in their districts should be indulged: Let members of Congress telecommute to their committee work, returning to Washington for two straight weeks out of every month for committee meetings and important votes. That's roughly the same time it was in session last year, but perhaps it would allow greater focus.
I'm tossing off these ideas, and there are clearly some problems with them. But it's an interesting thought experiment: Starting from scratch in 2010, design the world's greatest deliberative body. Go!
-- Tim Fernholz
