So why don't we extricate our representatives from the old boys' network that is the Beltway and demand that they Web-commute -- that they create a virtual Congress?

With the Web's debut in 1994 came prognostications of the role it would soon play in empowering the average citizen, creating virtual government and reinvigorating democracy. Since then, pornography on demand and electronic shopping have exploded. But virtual democracy languishes, remaining banally conceived as improved access to information.

Also Today Do e-mail petitions work? Chain letters and spam rarely impress politicians -- but they might listen to a more personal breed of Web activism.

Sure, candidate Web sites are ubiquitous, e-mail petitions make the rounds and tax forms are now available for download -- but these conveniences have done nothing to boost voter turnout (an abysmal 36.1 percent in the 1998 elections, down from 1994) or make the federal government more responsive to its constituents.

Let's push technology to the limits. Envision a true virtual Congress where our legislators live in their home districts and engage in polemic video conferences, proselytizing and pontificating in front of snazzy 21-inch flat-panel monitors, their every twitch recorded by a motion-detecting video camera. They drag and drop proposals and bills for their colleagues to view, scan in news articles, even replay a TV or radio clip at the click of a mouse. Maybe they'll even get to spend quality time with their families, cut back on airline travel time and effortlessly mingle with their constituents.

"Congress is already partly virtual," says Tracy Westen, president of the Democracy Network, or Dnet, which hosts online debates between candidates -- insofar as Congress is using e-mail and the Web to communicate with constituents. "But I don't think we can we get to the point that we dismantle Washington. Personal interactions have a value that can't be matched by the Net."

Rep. Lynn Rivers (D-Mich.), a member of the House Subcommittee on Technology, concurs, seeing "all kinds of problems" with sending lawmakers back to work from their districts. Though she's no technophobe -- using her Web site to advertise weekly coffee hours, town hall meetings and other programs to stay in touch with her constituents -- she doesn't support the idea of a virtual Congress.

"A lot of the educational opportunities exist here in Washington. Organizations are willing to come here because they can speak to a large number of members," she says. "I'm going to an event this afternoon on alternatives to military action in Kosovo -- I wouldn't have that chance in my district, and I think that would be to the detriment of policy."

Of course, such an event would be a prime candidate for a live video broadcast direct to legislators' home district offices. And between such programs, lawmakers could regularly amble out of their offices to meet and greet the people they represent -- sidestepping the distractions of special-interest groups in Washington.

But some, like Rivers, say it's not Washington that is the problem. "The members of Congress who are out of touch with America will be out of touch with America irrespective of where they live and how they run their office," she says. "This is not a structure problem, it's an individual problem -- how they view their job."

However, she does agree that a virtual Congress might encourage more people to run for office, by precluding the need to maintain two homes and solving the problem of the congressional commute. It also could make the run for Congress less daunting for people with families. "I have an easy commute," she says, "but there are people commuting 18 hours, like the people from Hawaii. Often the time they spend in their district is just jammed with events. For a lot of members, traveling is an incredible burden and I think that militates against going home, and that's the last thing we want."

Next page | If not a virtual Congress -- maybe no Congress?