Reimagining Congress as a Giant Internet Comment Section Isn't Much of a Stretch

​The idea of a "virtual congress" makes as much sense as anything else in US politics circa 2015. And indeed it's ​a very real proposal put forth by a pair of representatives from California and New Mexico via House Resolution 82, introduced last week with the full name: "Recognizing the security challenges of convening government officials in one specific place and directing the House of Representatives to take appropriate steps so that the House of Representatives can meet in a virtual setting."

It's kind of creepy at the outset, just in the implication that the House of Representatives convening in one place at one time, as representative democracy has gone for as long as it's been around, presents an undue security threat. Which mostly has the effect of making Congress sound like an authoritarian governing body in fear of some popular uprising or, at best, an imminent invasion.

In other words, it's super-paranoid, which is not a good look, particularly as US representative democracy continues its ungraceful slump.

To be fair, the first half of the resolution is all about constituent access and the new possibilities for such implied by the internet. For example, the bill laments:

many congressional staffers do not spend time in the district for which they were hired to work, and are less in touch with the needs of constituents;

And:

Members of Congress and congressional staff need greater interaction with constituents; constituents deserve better access to their Member of Congress;

But then there's all of the security stuff, including the requisite invocation of 9/11:

concerns were raised after 9/11 about the possibility of future terrorist attacks on the Nation's Capitol and the safety of the Members of Congress;

This is the dystopian part, where governance becomes a virtualized backroom enterprise. A paranoid message-board with the power to wage war. A government-in-exile.

We fret a whole lot these days about divisions and gridlock in Washington, but all of that occurs IRL, with politicians in one room. Has any debate or conversation ever become more civil online? Just imagine. Can you think of any more potentially well-fed troll than a US representative waging governance on a message-board? That's horrifying! It's nice to believe that politicians having to look each other in the eye is at least one thing keeping US governance from sliding into total self-annihilation.

In any case, the bill remains in committee(s) and isn't assured of even a full vote. But the seed is there; hopefully we can elect some not-horrible, untrollish people by the time things do go fully (or even partially) virtual. The trend isn't promising.