Dark Chambers
A recent article in the Political Fix (link via Combest) discusses the use of laptops on the Senate floor. Now, I may be speaking out of school on this subject, but I can’t imagine a better idea to allow legislators to have actual debates. Giving legislators ready access to the world of information represented on the Internet only serves to help the Missouri people.
A good Internet-enabled machine is relatively cheap, and gives legislators access to a plethora of information. I’m not talking about visiting Wikipedia to figure out the annual cost for dolphin studies during 2008; I’m talking about being able to figure out how much the Missouri government spends on particular projects, and how those figures compare to other states. Also, wouldn’t it be great if someone could easily pull out an article from the Show-Me Institute, the Cato Institute, or the Institute for Justice, and actually start talking about policy in-depth?
Having worked in the legislature, I am all for the efficiency of government — and there was more than one occasion in which I received a phone call or text message asking me to look up certain facts or find a rebuttal to a policy argument. I was happy to do my job, but by the time I actually found something, printed it out, went to the floor, had an usher get my legislator, wait for him read it, and then watch him wait to be called on by whomever was at the dais that day/hour, the point was moot — by that point, the bill or amendment was no longer up for discussion. So, allowing each legislator a laptop would hopefully solve at least this issue, while allowing them to particiapate in actual debate.
I know that there may be some issues with security and whatnot but I have to downplay those as minimal. Good firewalls, antivirus programs, and a great tech staff already exist, and this would not present any significant additional burden on the system. I have a very hard time understanding why legislators would protest the proposal so much. Someone care to explain it to me?
Not that I’m attempting an explanation, but you seem to minimize all the implications that should arise from the use of the said device. I m not saying that a laptop won’t rush the process nor give you a break from running through stairs trying to reach out to your policy maker with your info, but the question is: Can you maintain a focus in the debate when you have 400 computers with people allowed to browse the whole web, eager to land on the right article..? How much work can you really accomplish, and not divert the attention, in such an environment? Would you still be meeting your deadlines, waiting on people to explore all the search engines that the web could design, just to pull the right document or page?
Not quite evident. Great improvements require consequent solutions to address the shortcomes. With proper usage procedures,and website content restrictions, it could be a great tool for improvement and excellence.
Comment by Clovis Ouangraoua — January 29, 2009 @ 3:32 a.m.
Phil, the Senate is much different from the House. The Senate values history and tradition as opposed to logic and as you probably know has hundreds of unwritten rules. It’s unlikely for the Senate to break tradition and allow anyone to use a laptop.
The Senate holds “pure debate” in highest regard… Not researching rebuttals in the endless maze of information. Right or wrong, facts aren’t always available, and that knowledge goes into your routine and preparation.
Comment by Wilson — January 29, 2009 @ 9:46 a.m.
Clovis,
I have to disagree with you on your point. I understand that the internet can be a distraction but that is no reason for the senate to remain in the dark ages. Surem you might have some people on facebook or looking at espn.com but is that really a reason not to have the proper tools at your disposal when you need them.
Wilson,
I know the Senate has it’s traditions and that they are proud (to a fault) of them. I think my rebuttal to your point that information is hard hard to access is no reason for there not to have tools available. “Pure Debate” should involve all three elements of debate (logos, pathos, and ethos) Now I’m sure that there is a full supply of ethos and Pathos, so why would you then limit the logos? Additionally pure debate should be a free flowing of all information not one that has to rely on improperly recalled information. Nor should “pure debate” be scripted.
I realize the chances of actually coming out of the dark ages is slim but at least I can hope that the Missouri senate will understand that we are in a very wired age and they should utilize it as a resource.
Comment by Phil Eckelkamp — January 29, 2009 @ 2:49 p.m.
To reply to your comment, a very short time ago, Dave walked to my desk and asked me if I knew that in fact, legislators barely pay attention to a peer, when he’s on the tribune speaking to them at the house… They keep conversing with each other, discussing topics that range from the issue being addressed by the speaker, to areas that have nothing to do with the current debate. To tell you that they keep themselves pretty busy. Now, give them computers and a World Wide Web, and expect them to dive in this virtual world, a sure way to keep them busier, and like I said, get ready to extend your deadlines.
Comment by Clovis Ouangraoua — January 29, 2009 @ 3:29 p.m.
you guys really have commendable faith in the good intentions of politicians.
laws are passed bc they are in the best interest of law-passers, regardless if a logical argument can be expediently presented against them, at the time of voting or ever.
Comment by vroman — January 29, 2009 @ 8:33 p.m.
vroman,
I do have a lot of faith in legislators because i’ve been privileged to work with a number of them personally. They are not ALL as selfish and power hungry as you might believe. A lot of them, Reps, senators and statewide really do have a good heart and are willing to make sacrifices to serve.
Comment by Phil Eckelkamp — January 30, 2009 @ 10:30 a.m.
if our state representation is so noble, then explain how 99% of our laws are counter-productive, unconstitutional, self-serving, or just ridiculous. Are they stupid? despite their good intentions they just can’t figure it out? Or are they evil, and put on a good face of statesmanship for the benefit of their young pages?
Comment by vroman — January 30, 2009 @ 11:00 a.m.
vroman,
I’m sorry that you seem to have such a negative view of our legislators. I don’t think i’ll engage in a full debate about why our laws are the way they are but I can say that for a long time I believe things were done in a way that was not productive and expanded the state power. There have been a lot of good things done recently that have given power back to the citizens. I think there are some people that don’t really understand the traditional role of government but at the same time there are a few who do. It is those few that I had the privilege of being surrounded by. I was not a young ignorant page either, I was right down in the muck with the rest of them trying to get laws passed and shrink the size of government.
Comment by Phil Eckelkamp — January 30, 2009 @ 1:02 p.m.
I am not universally anti-politician (only nearly so). Id clearly excuse Ron Paul from any purges. If there are more guys like him in elected office I’d like to know about it. So, can you show me MO-level specific pols with comparable philosophical consistency and voting records? I am skeptical such people exist, but I’d be happy to be proven wrong.
Comment by vroman — January 30, 2009 @ 4:20 p.m.
Vroman,
I’m not sure I could point to someone specific now. I would have been able to point to Onder or Jackson when they were in the house but that is only because I knew them and was very familiar with their voting records. This may be a case of where lack of evidence does not mean lack of proof. I simply don’t know that many legislators anymore. I’m sure that there are some though.
Comment by Phil Eckelkamp — February 3, 2009 @ 3:51 p.m.