I'm not so sure. Reminds me of the story of Thomas Edison's voting machine,
which could record the yeas and neas more quickly. Congress didn't want it,
someone pointing out to whom that, sometimes, a slow vote is a political
necessity.

That story might be apocryphal, no longer relevant today, not true at the
time, or all of the above. Still, it illustrates the principle.

REAL personal relationships are probably quite important in politics.

I think a good example is physical science. These guys (and they are mostly
guys) are as geeky as anyone and certainly not opposed to new technology. And
the new technology is used (a good example are electronic preprints). But the
traditional conference still exists. It has a different emphasis, though. In
the old days, one would go to a conference to get the latest results. These days,
someone might show a figure, remark that it is an older result, and say that
newer stuff is available on the preprint server. These days, the emphasis is
more on learning about things outside of one's own immediate field (thanks to
better communication, the people in the immediate field are quite familiar). However,
what hasn't changed is the importance of personal, real face-to-face, contact.
If that is important in physical science, then certainly much more so in politics.

Another point is that in many countries, there is no concept of district, the
MPs being elected via a party list etc. Of course, they still live somewhere,
but the concept of working for one's own district directly doesn't exist.

Sessions or parliament, committee meetings etc can be and are televised and/or
available on the internet. So, the concept of meetings visible to all and having
the participants not being together physically are independent of one another.