Are quorums an archaic relic of the past?

Great Debates
1

I have an idea to reform the way governmental bodies in the US work but I’m not sure if its a good idea or bad. I can see both sides. I remember when Democrats fled the Texas statehouse (and I think in Wisconsin too) to avoid a vote on gerrymandering that they would have and did eventually lose. But I also remember an instance in a more distant time where Republicans physically barred the door, might have been in Congress or one of the states, so that they could vote or debate in peace without opposition. And even if I or you benefit from it, I think the practice of sneakily holding votes at weird hours of the night seems, at least in principle, to conflict with our democratic ideal.

So what would be the impact if we instituted electronic voting, not for the entire country because that would be chaotic and prone to lots of problems, but only for the federal House and Senate, and thereby eliminate quorum? Hackers aside, let’s say we can secure the network and provide some additional security checks such as phone or e-verification. Each bill that’s voted on must be posted online, with members not requiring to be present able to vote through phone or through online (with the additional security checks above). It would be up to both the government to notify members that votes are upcoming, and up to members to check the website or whatever so they know when a vote is scheduled.

Just for the sake of argument, lets say the vote must be given a reasonable time for members to be notified and respond, and even after the vote, there is a period of confirmation.

By doing this, it allows members not to be present but to vote on bills. While using a quorum as a tactic as proven beneficial to my party, I want legislators to actually do the job they are elected to do. This way, it would be harder to duck votes, I think (I don’t foresee a great many people simply using the excuse that their phone was out so they couldn’t vote or something stupid like that), and allow every bill to be considered and voted on by nearly every member of the legislative body.

I think this will also make government a bit more honest about certain things (and maybe less honest about others, I dunno) because it would mean that avoiding a vote would be harder to explain, and people would have to put up or shut up instead of using excuses like missing a plane or whatever. Furthermore, it allows those who are otherwise occupied like on vacation or sick in a hospital to vote on things, and prevents the opposition from holding votes almost in secret.

What I don’t want to discuss is how security won’t be enough and people can fake vote. Let’s try to keep the discussion on whether eliminating quorum is a good thing if we can get everyone to vote on everything.

2

Our Congresscritters already do their damnedest to avoid the chamber whenever possible–they have important fundraising to do, remember, and the petty business of government cannot be allowed to stand in the way of that!

I am not really in a rush to give them new and more powerful ways to shirk their duties.

3

Quorum is important because you don’t want a small minority of legislators to be able to pass legislation in the name of the entire body.

My only reform would be to allow quorum to be suspended if one party has “fled” the legislature to prevent a law from being voted on. Basically, whoever is present passes a resolution saying that such a situation exists, and then a reasonable amount of time is given for people to return (say, 1 or 2 days). After this, whichever legislators are present can vote. Suspension of quorum would automatically expire as soon a quorum was re-established.

To prevent abuse, courts could rule that the suspension of quorum was invalid if there wasn’t valid grounds for it, thus nullifying any actions made by the quorum-less legislature.

4

On the list of things that’s wrong with government – money too influential, positions determined by interest groups rather than facts, disinterest in compromise, etc. – the matter of attendance rates for votes is near the bottom of the list. Making substantive changes to the legislative process to accommodate something that it is an almost non-existent problem is not wise.

Furthermore, I like the idea that elected officials have to meet in person to do things. The Congressman from the Fifth District of Fredonia should have to run into and hopefully listen to his colleagues on a regular basis, as opposed to making it easier for him to never, ever leave his district at all.

Besides, having all elected representatives together at the same time is simply a good idea. It lets us know where to put up the bars in case we need to actually create the congressional petting zoo.

5

They can avoid the whole problem by just making the quorum a majority, as it is in Congress.

6

I think this idea would make it less likely, not more, for Congress people to shirk their duties. If they are legally “on-call” for every vote, then whatever excuses they have would be invalid and they would be held to a higher (slightly) standard of actually being made to vote.

I think that’s the opposite of what I feel this would accomplish. Eliminate quorums, but make it much much easier for people to vote so that a quorum would be meaningless. However, in response to your concern, I’d have no problems requiring that a certain percentage of votes must be cast for a specific bill to be approved, and failing that the bill would die a natural death as it does now. This way, people can still retain the power of not voting on something to kill it, but they would be held to a higher standard since they can’t simply say they couldn’t make it to the vote for some reason. Those who did not vote would automatically be assumed to have skipped it on purpose, no excuses about missing the train or being out of the country or something

7

First of all, there are two issues with the quorum. One is with small delibrative bodies like your church board or HOA. If quorums were not required to conduct business, I can assure it would be abused to pass decrees via rump sessions. You do not want that.

The second is with legislative bodies whose job it is to be a deliberative body. If there is not a quorum, there can be a Call of the House and missing members are arrested and brought back to the House. I suppose that if legislators go so far to be derelict in their duty that a Call doesn’t get a quorum that the proceedings should continue with sanctions against the legislators that don’t show up.

8

The biggest problem with the Texas legislators fleeing the state so there wouldn’t be a quorum is that they were holed up in Oklahoma. Everyone knows that you’re supposed to flee to Mexico, for crying out loud.

9

I actually want my elected national representatives and congresspersons to attend sessions. I want them to debate or at least listen to others’ views. If votes were electronic and could be done remotely, sure, the voting rate would go up, but I think the average politician would actually spend less time on any given vote. It would turn into a voting app that had to be poked at twice a day.

10

Too late.

That’s really how it works now. When there’s a vote, the bells ring all over Capitol Hill and the members race in, hit the button (House) or talk to the clerk (Senate) and nearly all of them race right back out. Nobody else is sitting there to listen to speeches about the magnificence of the guy they’re naming a post office after.