We Need a Programmer for President

    * They understand how to break down large problem to small ones 
    * Are efficient and always looking for ways to make other parts of the system efficient
    * Understand the technical issues facing the country 
    * Knows the value of having, and the benefit of relying on expects in each problem domain
    * Knows how to plan and implement solutions to complex problems 
    * Knows how to map problems across domains to leverage existing knowledge 
    * Isn't afraid of getting into the details of problems.

Sure, if you re-think the world to some utopia where the president only needs to figure out what the problems are, design new laws and implement them by pushing a button, then yes. But you don't need to watch a lot of West Wing to realize that the skills required are primarily people-skills: communication, diplomacy, delegation and negotiation. Some programmers have these, sure, but they are not their typical strengths.

I know many programmers from India, for instance, and they are talented people that I really like. I've seen the real contribution that these people make to America's bottom line.

I've also seen many corporate "body shops" where frankly, there's a class war going on, and management wants to "tame" the complexity of software developers by making us low-priced and low-status cogs. The low status may be more fundamental than the low price, because a professionalized stratum of programmers is a threat against managers who build castles in the air and send us off on charges of the light brigade and to build Marginot Lines.

Many U.S. programmers see H1-B as a weapon that will be used against them.

Personally I see something in both points of view on this issue but I'd find it hard to take either side as a platform position or to support an organization that takes a stance on H1-B one way or the other.

I definitely think we're missing a real professional organization for software developers. The ACM fails at this because it represents the interests of academic computer scientists, not practitioners.

I'd very much like to pay dues to something like the ACM, oriented towards practitioners, but unfortunately this doesn't exist.

I worked for 25 years in house techie/programmer for a child development agency. I had discovered that the best leaders are the ones who know how to lead, set the course and work with all the groups. From having a good staff to rely on as well as be an effective communicator with drive and empathy. Definitely good to to be a people person.

I think having a programmer oriented person in the cabinet staff would be a good thing, but not as a leader.

In a technocratic society; specialists rule. It wouldn't matter whether the President would be a programmer, engineer, or theorist. Any scientist would do an equally good job at re-factoring the government's inefficiencies.

But sadly, a FPTP voting process means it's a popularity contest. Fix the voting system, and open up this possibility. My vote's on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

Adding an amendment for 'the internet' is lame.

The already existing Bill of Rights covers it nicely.

That we're getting laws and executive orders that nullify civil rights isn't a problem with the internet, but with the guys writing the laws and executive orders.

I think the best way for our people to change the government is through the House of Representatives. I think we could get an engineer elected in SV, NoVa, Boston, Austin, RTP... maybe a few other places if we really tried. That would be a good place to start.

I would say, being a programmer might even make you a worse president:

1) There are no advantages to being a programmer while responding to significant issue questions regarding abortion, health care, gun control, etc. Programming profession is oblivious to these human concerns.

2) Software is infinitely flexible and costs little to change. Government, might look like just a bunch of sentences written in laws and rules; but changing them are infinitely expensive. Being a programmer puts you in a mindset that is far from advantageous in this setting.

Programmers (or engineers) could perhaps make good bureaucrats, creating mechanisms that will realize the specifications given by people.

One speech, one vision can re-program millions of minds, one policy consistently followed can affect billions.

We need leaders who know how humans work. We would like leaders who use that ethically and for the good of all.

Here's hoping.

On another note, I cant remember what country it was, i think either Japan or China, the majority of the higher tier politicians are engineers, rather than lawyers, which i think is a good thing, but again, over abundance of one profession hurts other issues.

Planet Money has been running an infrequent series within the series about policies economists of all persuasions believe should be the US economic policy. It's great - all solid, reasonable stuff from an economic perspective but also (as they make clear) entirely contrary to public opinion.

Even assuming (and it's a massive and somewhat arrogant assumption) that a programmer knows what's right for America, it completely fails to address how that programmer (or anyone else) might get such policies enacted, especially as of the 8 at least 5 are contentious and 2 (congress and immigration) are potentially politically suicidal.

There seems to be a persistent expectation in the United States that the President is an all powerful position that can dictate laws, etc. Remember that he can merely suggest to the legislature what should be done. While executive orders are available they often have limited scope and can be easily challenged (or even ignored).

In fact, legislatively the only real power the US President has is negative, not positive - he can say no to a legislation (by vetoing it).

Let's take a look at a few of the proposed items here:

* Issue #1: Teach Programming at an Early Age

The majority of curriculum decisions are deferred to a LOCAL level in the United States - mandates from individual states & school districts primarily decide what is being taught. Worse, because Texas is one of the largest text book markets many manufacturers simply print the textbooks used across the US to the Texas educational standards.

The only major influence I've seen in recent years on a national education standard is No Child Left Behind which, by many reports, has simply pushed schools to focus on test taking. By many reports, "Race To The Top" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_Top) has made this no better.

If you look at Wikipedia's article on the Department of Education, they do not really set policy in the US. Instead, 'The primary functions of the Department of Education are to "establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on US schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights."[10] The Department of Education does not establish schools or colleges'

* Issue #2: Fixing Immigration

Again, this is primarily up to Congress to act on, and there seems to be no desire to do so. The President really has no influence on this issue directly.

* Issue #3 Abolish Software Patents

This is primarily a legislation issue – we must fix the patent system and that has to be done in Congress. The one place a President might influence this would be the appointment of Supreme Court Justices; and let us not forget that Congress has veto power over these.

* Issue #4: Internet Freedoms

This discusses amending the US Constitution; this process is not done by the US President. There are, to my knowledge, two ways of amending the US Constitution.

1. The US Congress can draft a proposed amendment with a MAJORITY of Congress approving it (2/3+), and put it to the States to ratify - 3/4+ of them must ratify it.

2. A Majority of the States can demand Congress form a Constitutional Convention to discuss creating a new amendment, then 3/4+ of them must ratify it.

I don't recall if every state deals with the Ratification of amendments the same, but I believe some can have the state legislature ratify on the people's behalf, while others have a direct popular vote.

* Issue #5: Cybersecurity

You might pull this off at the Executive level, by further empowering agencies like Homeland Security. But real action requires coordination with a Congress who can draft penalties for companies that don't comply, etc.

* Issue #6: Refactoring Congress and Agencies

Only Congress may refactor Congress; the Executive has little to no power over this.

* Issue #7: Improve Government UX

Again, we need Congress to refactor this, and probably constitutional amendment processes. A system like our Congress thrives on "insider" behavior and has little incentive to change itself.

* Issue #8: Space

Developers may care about space (I do, as well) but the majority of the United States does not. The President may propose a budget, but ultimately the Congress decides it.

the NASA budget tends to be less than 1% of the US Federal Budget, and getting it higher than that is a battle that would require a radical change in the perceptions of the American Public as well as Congress. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#Annual_budget.2C...)

    MEM-098-12
    The House Office of Legislative Counsel is looking for a Software Technician to 
    augment their existing IT staff. This position is a support position that solves daily 
    software issues as they arise and performs preventive maintenance routines.4
    Core Responsibilities:
    To troubleshoot and maintain office drafting software, document management 
    software, and related supporting software. To monitor nightly scheduled jobs for 
    errors and fix as needed. To work with systems administrator in solving problems 
    when underlying operating system or network permissions may be part of the 
    problem. Assist end-users with resolution of system related technical challenges
    Duties:
    Check logs from nightly automated scripts on SQL server, and utility file servers 
    for anomalies; assist in deploying/installing software written by office 
    programmers as well as outside vendors; provide backup assistance to the system 
    administrator on desktop and operating system issues when necessary; 
    create/modify utility scripts in DOS batch and VBscript ; test certain software on 
    new desktops and laptops before they are assigned to users ; perform SQL queries 
    to assist in troubleshooting; performs or commissions network, personal 
    computer, and peripheral maintenance; adds, updates, and deletes users from the 
    document management and authoring systems; eventually provides computer 
    software training to staff; document tasks and fixes in internal wiki used by 
    office;  attend weekly staff meeting to discuss present and potential upcoming 
    issues; Performs other duties as assigned.
    Qualifications:
    At least 4 years technical training or equivalent work experience with computers, 
    software and hardware; at least 2 years experience working with Windows 
    networks (LAN); strong academic credentials; knowledge of current Windows 
    software and applications; ability to work with technical peers and users of 
    computer systems;
    some knowledge of SQL queries, XML markup language, PERL programming 
    language, and VB programming language helpful; strong oral  and  written  
    communication  skills; abilityto work cooperatively and courteously with others; 
    and
    availability to after hours and as needed (a few times a year generally)
    Applicant Instructions:
    Email resume and cover letter with subject line “Software Technician” to 
    legcoun@mail.house.gov.

An effective public servant is just that: someone who is able to save and spend political capital in a way that best serves his or her constituency (the people) instead of choosing merely the most technical sound or inexpensive solution to a problem.

So in that respect, usually more socially minded people like teachers and nurses make good politicians. They understand that the electorate is more capable than it realizes and can rise above problems that on paper appear to be too complex or expensive to solve (for example by spending its way out of a depression instead of choosing austerity which shrinks an economy).

The problem isn't the president, the problem is that people are greedy and non-rational.

"Issue #1: Teach Programming at an Early Age

. . . .

"Ask any programmer how old they were when they first started coding. A survey done on that very question shows that programmers who were still coding well into their thirties started learning, on average, at age 13 with a standard deviation of about 5 years, which is a window from age 8 to 18."

More interesting than asking current programmers at what age they started programming would be asking them whether they first learned to enjoy programming and to become good at it because of school lessons, or despite school lessons. Comments on that issue from working programmers would be very interesting to me here.

"Therefore, I believe we need to require all Middle School students to take a course that equips them with a basic understanding of computers and computer programs."

I took a unit in BASIC programming on a time-sharing terminal as part of my eighth grade mathematics class during the Baby Boom generation. That didn't turn me into a programmer. Some of my high school classmates who did turn into programmers endured our high school's optional course on computers (as I also did), but they actually learned their programming by doing what they felt like on the PLATO time-sharing terminal at our public library, by playing around with their early Hewlett Packard electronic calculators, and as they became college students by building their own microcomputers before those were a commercially available product. My oldest son, who is currently a software engineer at a startup in New York City (yeah, they have their electricity back now) learned to program in a joint class arranged by our homeschooling support group, with voluntary attendance, through some voluntary distance-learning courses, and through a lot of building his own projects on GitHub while taking computer science classes through dual enrollment at our state flagship university while of high school age.

"An early start program like this would ensure that everyone gets a taste of what it's like to code, giving us a greater opportunity to inspire more kids to become developers."

Mandatory school courses in MANY subjects frequently have little or nothing to do with what actual practitioners do with the same subject in the free-enterprise workplace. It would be an interesting issue to study empirically, but for all the evidence I have seen, mandatory school courses can do as much to turn pupils off to subjects as they do to spark learner interest.

"Issue #6: Refactoring Congress and Agencies

"If Congress were a software product, customers would have abandoned it long ago. If I am elected president, I intend to bring a set of fresh eyes to every little process in congress, the executive branch, and our many government agencies."

Translated into English, what he is saying is that he is going to violate the separation of powers among three branches of federal government that is built into the United States Constitution. And Congress will succeed in blocking him from doing that--with my full support. I don't want a dictator in the United States, and I'm more worried about a President who becomes a dictator with no checks and balances than I am about an inefficient Congress. (Indeed, I cherish the saying of a wise friend of mine who said, in a conversation about politics with a mathematics teacher and me, "I'm an engineer. The last thing I want is EFFICIENT government.") On the other hand, to give this point its due, if he would like to do more private-sector contracting to deliver services of the executive branch that the President leads, I'm happy to see him do competitive contracting to the full extent allowed by law, and to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to persuade Congress to pass more laws that would allow more flexibility in management of executive branch agencies.

"Issue #8: Space

"Developers care about space. Maybe it has something to do with an appreciation for inspiring innovation in the fields of engineering,"

but more likely it has more to do with most developers reading more science fiction novels than they read books about history and current events. I'm a child of the Space Age, and I liked nothing better in my youth than watching TV news reports about space missions and reading continually books (fiction and nonfiction) about all aspects of space exploration. But the cruel expense of boosting materials out of earth's gravity well even into near-earth orbit has convinced me, once I grew up and learned economics, that manned space exploration (particularly) is a huge waste of money, and even unmanned space exploration (which I support in general, for instance by putting photographs of Mars on my computer as my desktop wallpaper) needs to be very carefully managed not to become a money pit. I agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson that there is a rapturous sense of wonder derived from exploring space that expands our imaginations, and that basic science research in general is very important, but it is easy to spend too much on the space program, which was certainly done by the space shuttle program and arguably by the Apollo program. There are a lot of exciting and stimulating basic science problems to solve right here on earth.

As Winston Churchill said, "Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Now that we've established that... what a poor way to write software. First of all, making laws in the US is an additive process. As a developer, you approach a system that is large, intertwined and sometimes contains large streaks of spaghetti and you are asked to make a small tweak. You can refactor the system to accommodate the new paradigm, or you can simply hack on the feature on the peripheral. On top of that, you are not the permanent maintainer of the system; you are a contractor how is only working on it temporarily. Lastly, you won't be the one using the feature (maintaining the law or affected by the law).

Next, everything is a law in the US. I will use a made-up example here to not stir up controversy with actual examples: the legislative branch may pass a law that says "the Federal Highway Administration" shall oversee the construction of I-999, a new highway through states XX and YY". That's not a law, that's the FHA's job. The law should delegate, and not worry about what the FHA is doing. It should of course include the integrity checks: if the FHA does a poor job, the people responsible will be held accountable. Less laws leads to less complex system and less unintended consequences.

There is also lots of legacy code, that nobody seems to want to clean up. First, there are the ridiculous laws like "In Missouri, It is Illegal To Drive With An Uncaged Bear (Caged Bears Are OK)". Legacy code weighs you down and makes things more complex. There are also laws such as the "stand your ground" law in Florida where you can get more of a sentence for discharging a firearm into the air (warning shot) than shooting someone dead.

The solution seems to me to be in getting some system architects into the White House, Congress and Senate. The system architects, developers and ops people in charge should think long-term. Yes, we are in a recession now, and yes, a large number of these individuals have to start worrying about campaigning in less than two years, but while they may be in and out, we are stuck with the laws they pass and enforce for pretty much an indefinite amount of time. In fact, encouraging reduction of the lawbase should be a part of the system. Refactoring should be encouraged, so long as it is done properly; I know that's a vague term, but currently, so much of the system is off-limits/a third rail, that nothing seems to get done about major issues.

Another solution would be to add expiration dates to laws, and the more specific the law, the sooner it expires. That way, pain in the ass laws that keep coming up should be done away with.

What does everyone think of this analogy?