10 ms·

Why Developers Should Run for Congress

39 points by cjoh 16y ago

Jun8 16y ago
Electing PG would be cool beyond words but I say "God, no!" If he goes over there he will most likely be incapacitated by politics and most of his time will be taken by useless committee meetings, etc. I think he is doing much more good as in his position right now. It wouldn't be too much to say, I think, that he (with his excellent colleagues, of course) singlehandedly changed how people thought about early stage tech funding and incubators.
lionhearted 16y ago
I don't vote because I think the way the system is set up with the Democrat and Republican parties being the only legitimate candidates is corrupt, the federal government greatly exceeds its legal and moral authority, and I don't want to appear to grant any legitimacy or my blessing to this farce of a process. I don't feel beholden to it, nor do I wish to control it. My personal feelings are that I'll support the few legitimate, non-bureaucratic, non-corrupt aspects of the system while the rest of the system can get tossed. But I might rethink that if Paul Graham somehow got on a ticket. America needs engineers and honest businesspeople running the show instead of lawyers and activists.
- gte910h 16y ago
  Minor Quibble: The name of the party is the Democratic Party, not Democrat Party.
- tansey 16y ago
  You want non-lawyers drafting laws? There's a good reason why most congress people are lawyers. The law is very tricky and English is an ambiguous language that needs to be made crystal clear from a legal standpoint (which typically becomes unreadable to laypeople). That said, I do think there's a place for engineers that happen to be interested in law and passionate about government. I would appreciate it if maybe 10% of congress were former engineers/scientists/developers. Also, not voting is what corrupt politicians want you to do. Vote for a candidate you do support, even if you know they won't win.
  - zargon 16y ago
    "Corrupt politicians" is a tautology. I don't vote because I don't consent to mob rule, and I refuse to participate in forcing my preferences on other people using the violence of the state.
    - tansey 16y ago
      Mob rule? We have a constitution designed for majority say with minority rights. We have checks and balances. There is a reason we need a social contract in society, and it's been well articulated by people like Locke and Hobbes for hundreds of years. I don't want to get into a flame war on HN, so I'll just end my replies here. :)
    - CapitalistCartr 16y ago
      That's why we don't have 'mob rule', i.e. Democracy in the USA. Instead we have a constitutional republic.
      - zargon 16y ago
        I find it interesting that people leap to correct/redefine the usage of a word so that they can ignore the meaning of a statement.
        CapitalistCartr 16y ago
        No, that is the crux of his statement. Complaining about a situation as it doesn't exist, is akin to a straw man.
        zargon 16y ago
        I didn't know that the term was considered a synonym 'democracy', and was using it in a more general sense. The main link between the two seems to be usage along the lines of the Jefferson quote. Saying that a democracy is a type of mob rule doesn't make it the only type of mob rule. Whether the mob is every citizen or just the citizens that wear majority-approved costumes doesn't change the meaning I was trying to convey.
- davidcuddeback 16y ago
  > I don't vote because I think the way the system is set up with the Democrat and Republican parties being the only legitimate candidates is corrupt That's exactly why I do vote, albeit never for a Democrat or Republican.
edanm 16y ago
From the article: "developers are certainly better public communicators than lawyers are." Really? Paul Graham certainly is, but I'm willing to bet that the average programmer is not as good a communicator as the average lawyer. At least not to "normal" (non techie) people. By the way, this article brings up something I've been wondering for a while: who impacts the world more, technologists or politicians? At the edge cases, I think (but am not sure) that it's the technologists (Bill Gates has certainly had quite an impact, I'm guessing more than most Presidents, even). I'm wondering about the average cases of, say, successful entrepreneurs versus elected officials.
- cjoh 16y ago
  Try reading a piece of legislation vs a piece of technical documentation and see who the better communicator is.
  - lionhearted 16y ago
    > Try reading a piece of legislation vs a piece of technical documentation and see who the better communicator is. The confusing, indecipherable, loophole-ridden mess is a feature, not a bug. That's the typical legislator's monetization strategy.
  - edanm 16y ago
    Yes, but consider that legislation is like a piece of code going into a legacy system that's been around for over 200 years, and is supposed to be as accurate as computer code in what it means. It is not an easy system.
  - ultrasaurus 16y ago
    It might be a faulty assumption to compare legislation to code written for maintainability (or "as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will be a violent psychopath who knows where you live") I tend to think of it as code written for job security: misnamed functions, buggy and non-existent commas. Testing by one or two WorksForMe-esque court cases.
cookiecaper 16y ago
I'm pretty sure most developers would get really frustrated with the aribtrary, corrupt, stacked system almost immediately and just quit. It's like getting a program in VBA or something; you don't even try to support it, just hook up something sane immediately.
pg 16y ago
Never. It would be like working for a big company, but more so.
- cjoh 16y ago
  Two years, Paul. Come on.
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    ...after you get elected, which took a year of pandering to fools at considerable expense in dollars, dignity, or both. From an individual standpoint it just does not make snese: the absolute best you can hope for is to be called 'wonkish,' as opposed to 'autistic.' Now a Programmer Party would be a wonderful idea, at least in theory. It could run on an agenda of tidying up the laws and making them readable and responsive to people's needs. On the other hand, you only have to look at political arguments here on HN to realize that programmers are as ideologically fractured as any other social group. As soon as a question of economics or the scope of government power arose, a schism would occur. Clearly what we need is to declare a Politician class, and then create multiple objects derived from that class, taking full advantage of inheritance, polymorphism and operator overloading. This will solve all our problems, just as soon as we agree on which compiler to use...
    - cjoh 16y ago
      Eh, it's not that hard to win a Congressional seat. I've worked on and with dozens of campaigns. And only if you're in a super swing area against a well funded candidate do you have to do the cynical pandering stuff. Ultimately, shoe-leather and hard work can win elections. Plus, something tells me Paul can raise enough money to win in a few minutes.
    - anigbrowl 16y ago
      (edit timeout) I get your point cjoh - you're right, but I have real doubts about what can be achieved by an individual in a 2 year term, especially when set against the many other unrelated needs of constituents. Many countries run parliamentary systems with party lists, such that candidates for office may be experts on a narrow range of issues rather than needing to appeal to a particular geographical constituency, but the US system is structured against that. On a related note, it is interesting for those of us in California to watch how the candidacies of Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman are playing out.
plinkplonk 16y ago
In my experience, most good devs have no head for politics. The kind of thinking needed to thrive in politics is very different from that needed to write good code. The best politicians combine a cold blooded ruthlessness and extreme ambition with some idealism. The worst don't have the idealism, or are actively evil. Most good politicians are extroverts who love meeting people and are very good at organizational wheeling and dealing and power plays. Most devs are the opposite of all that, and the few who do have some political skills end up as CEOs and such. By and large, developers can't even handle office politics. Legislative politics is to office politics as a knife fight in a dark alley is to a pillow fight.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Well, in legislative politics, at least the politics are the point and to be expected. Having served in a low-level elected role at one point, I vastly preferred that politics to office politics, which seem to be a way of equalizing the playing field for people who don't actually have skills.
  - cjoh 16y ago
    My old boss said something wise I reflect on often: "Clay, you're just not political enough to work in a company. You should try politics." 2 years later I was lead programmer of the Dean campaign.
stcredzero 16y ago
Conspiracy: A 2nd-tier nation wants to become a major power in the middle to late 21st century. The real oligarchical powers that be in that nation bring about the following: - substantive emphasis on education - sane Intellectual Property laws - entrepreneur-friendly tax laws somewhere on their territory - lots of developer/tech-savvy legislators The last point is the crucial one going forward. The first 3 points are the advantageous policies one can foresee now. The developer/tech-savvy legislators will know the right thing to do in the unforeseeable future.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Ah, I am reminded of an old syllogism (stolen and modified from Cvltvre Made Stupid, one of my favourite books growing up): 1. Society should be run by the most qualified people 2. I am a tech-savvy software developer 3. Therefore, society should be run by tech-savvy software developers.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    Shoving words into my mouth? I am not saying this nation should be entirely run by the tech-savvy. I'm saying that there should be representation for that sort of expertise amongst its legislators. If the doctors of country X noted that there was a disturbing misunderstanding of medical issues in the legislature, I don't think they'd be unreasonable to suggest that perhaps a few representatives with medical degrees would help.
schacon 16y ago
I did actually run for Congress a few years ago (http://www.politicsandtechnology.com/2005/10/scott_chacon_fo.html http://www.politicsandtechnology.com/2005/10/scott_chacon_fo...), so I can tell you as a developer and having been a political candidate, that being a developer is much, much easier. I'm a relatively outgoing person for being a software developer - I do a lot of public speaking and so forth, but putting yourself up as a political candidate is incredibly stressful. You have to be an expert in everything - tech issues, yes, but also farm issues, banking issues, environmental issues, taxes, poverty, unemployment, zoning, etc. It involves walking door to door and telling people face to face that they should trust you and give you their vote and hopefully money and time. You have to ask people for money - all the time. You are asking for a job representing everyone around you, so it's hard to relax - you feel like you're slacking when you should be asking for votes or money or studying the issues. It's also helpful to be very, very partisan. If you're moderate, the people that volunteer for causes like yours will seem extreme for you and saying that people on the other side are not horrible people can lose you volunteers. You have to juggle that. If you think office politics or developer cliques are bad or distasteful, wait until you see what the political circles are like. Everyone has an opinion (including people like us) and knows how everything should be run. When you don't do what they suggest, they might leave. I love the idea - obviously I invested a lot of my time in it. I think technology can seriously improve our governance for the better and having tech aware legislators would be a good thing. However, before you do it, know what you're getting into. People think politicians are corrupt and stupid, but in general I think they're mostly smart, hard working and want to honestly help. Running for office is complex, stressful and trying. Before you throw your hat into the ring, contact someone you like, volunteer your time, help them understand these issues, build them these tools and convince them they are worth it. You might be surprised how approachable many of them are. Then, if you still feel the need to replace them, go for it. And let me know, I'd love to hear about it.

39 points by cjoh 16y ago

Jun8 16y ago

Electing PG would be cool beyond words but I say "God, no!" If he goes over there he will most likely be incapacitated by politics and most of his time will be taken by useless committee meetings, etc. I think he is doing much more good as in his position right now. It wouldn't be too much to say, I think, that he (with his excellent colleagues, of course) singlehandedly changed how people thought about early stage tech funding and incubators.

lionhearted 16y ago

I don't vote because I think the way the system is set up with the Democrat and Republican parties being the only legitimate candidates is corrupt, the federal government greatly exceeds its legal and moral authority, and I don't want to appear to grant any legitimacy or my blessing to this farce of a process. I don't feel beholden to it, nor do I wish to control it. My personal feelings are that I'll support the few legitimate, non-bureaucratic, non-corrupt aspects of the system while the rest of the system can get tossed. But I might rethink that if Paul Graham somehow got on a ticket. America needs engineers and honest businesspeople running the show instead of lawyers and activists.

gte910h 16y ago
Minor Quibble: The name of the party is the Democratic Party, not Democrat Party.
tansey 16y ago
You want non-lawyers drafting laws? There's a good reason why most congress people are lawyers. The law is very tricky and English is an ambiguous language that needs to be made crystal clear from a legal standpoint (which typically becomes unreadable to laypeople). That said, I do think there's a place for engineers that happen to be interested in law and passionate about government. I would appreciate it if maybe 10% of congress were former engineers/scientists/developers. Also, not voting is what corrupt politicians want you to do. Vote for a candidate you do support, even if you know they won't win.
- zargon 16y ago
  "Corrupt politicians" is a tautology. I don't vote because I don't consent to mob rule, and I refuse to participate in forcing my preferences on other people using the violence of the state.
  - tansey 16y ago
    Mob rule? We have a constitution designed for majority say with minority rights. We have checks and balances. There is a reason we need a social contract in society, and it's been well articulated by people like Locke and Hobbes for hundreds of years. I don't want to get into a flame war on HN, so I'll just end my replies here. :)
  - CapitalistCartr 16y ago
    That's why we don't have 'mob rule', i.e. Democracy in the USA. Instead we have a constitutional republic.
    - zargon 16y ago
      I find it interesting that people leap to correct/redefine the usage of a word so that they can ignore the meaning of a statement.
      - CapitalistCartr 16y ago
        No, that is the crux of his statement. Complaining about a situation as it doesn't exist, is akin to a straw man.
        zargon 16y ago
        I didn't know that the term was considered a synonym 'democracy', and was using it in a more general sense. The main link between the two seems to be usage along the lines of the Jefferson quote. Saying that a democracy is a type of mob rule doesn't make it the only type of mob rule. Whether the mob is every citizen or just the citizens that wear majority-approved costumes doesn't change the meaning I was trying to convey.
davidcuddeback 16y ago
> I don't vote because I think the way the system is set up with the Democrat and Republican parties being the only legitimate candidates is corrupt That's exactly why I do vote, albeit never for a Democrat or Republican.

edanm 16y ago

From the article: "developers are certainly better public communicators than lawyers are." Really? Paul Graham certainly is, but I'm willing to bet that the average programmer is not as good a communicator as the average lawyer. At least not to "normal" (non techie) people. By the way, this article brings up something I've been wondering for a while: who impacts the world more, technologists or politicians? At the edge cases, I think (but am not sure) that it's the technologists (Bill Gates has certainly had quite an impact, I'm guessing more than most Presidents, even). I'm wondering about the average cases of, say, successful entrepreneurs versus elected officials.

cjoh 16y ago
Try reading a piece of legislation vs a piece of technical documentation and see who the better communicator is.
- lionhearted 16y ago
  > Try reading a piece of legislation vs a piece of technical documentation and see who the better communicator is. The confusing, indecipherable, loophole-ridden mess is a feature, not a bug. That's the typical legislator's monetization strategy.
- edanm 16y ago
  Yes, but consider that legislation is like a piece of code going into a legacy system that's been around for over 200 years, and is supposed to be as accurate as computer code in what it means. It is not an easy system.
- ultrasaurus 16y ago
  It might be a faulty assumption to compare legislation to code written for maintainability (or "as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will be a violent psychopath who knows where you live") I tend to think of it as code written for job security: misnamed functions, buggy and non-existent commas. Testing by one or two WorksForMe-esque court cases.

cookiecaper 16y ago

I'm pretty sure most developers would get really frustrated with the aribtrary, corrupt, stacked system almost immediately and just quit. It's like getting a program in VBA or something; you don't even try to support it, just hook up something sane immediately.

pg 16y ago

Never. It would be like working for a big company, but more so.

cjoh 16y ago
Two years, Paul. Come on.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  ...after you get elected, which took a year of pandering to fools at considerable expense in dollars, dignity, or both. From an individual standpoint it just does not make snese: the absolute best you can hope for is to be called 'wonkish,' as opposed to 'autistic.' Now a Programmer Party would be a wonderful idea, at least in theory. It could run on an agenda of tidying up the laws and making them readable and responsive to people's needs. On the other hand, you only have to look at political arguments here on HN to realize that programmers are as ideologically fractured as any other social group. As soon as a question of economics or the scope of government power arose, a schism would occur. Clearly what we need is to declare a Politician class, and then create multiple objects derived from that class, taking full advantage of inheritance, polymorphism and operator overloading. This will solve all our problems, just as soon as we agree on which compiler to use...
  - cjoh 16y ago
    Eh, it's not that hard to win a Congressional seat. I've worked on and with dozens of campaigns. And only if you're in a super swing area against a well funded candidate do you have to do the cynical pandering stuff. Ultimately, shoe-leather and hard work can win elections. Plus, something tells me Paul can raise enough money to win in a few minutes.
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    (edit timeout) I get your point cjoh - you're right, but I have real doubts about what can be achieved by an individual in a 2 year term, especially when set against the many other unrelated needs of constituents. Many countries run parliamentary systems with party lists, such that candidates for office may be experts on a narrow range of issues rather than needing to appeal to a particular geographical constituency, but the US system is structured against that. On a related note, it is interesting for those of us in California to watch how the candidacies of Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman are playing out.

plinkplonk 16y ago

In my experience, most good devs have no head for politics. The kind of thinking needed to thrive in politics is very different from that needed to write good code. The best politicians combine a cold blooded ruthlessness and extreme ambition with some idealism. The worst don't have the idealism, or are actively evil. Most good politicians are extroverts who love meeting people and are very good at organizational wheeling and dealing and power plays. Most devs are the opposite of all that, and the few who do have some political skills end up as CEOs and such. By and large, developers can't even handle office politics. Legislative politics is to office politics as a knife fight in a dark alley is to a pillow fight.

jbooth 16y ago
Well, in legislative politics, at least the politics are the point and to be expected. Having served in a low-level elected role at one point, I vastly preferred that politics to office politics, which seem to be a way of equalizing the playing field for people who don't actually have skills.
- cjoh 16y ago
  My old boss said something wise I reflect on often: "Clay, you're just not political enough to work in a company. You should try politics." 2 years later I was lead programmer of the Dean campaign.

stcredzero 16y ago

Conspiracy: A 2nd-tier nation wants to become a major power in the middle to late 21st century. The real oligarchical powers that be in that nation bring about the following: - substantive emphasis on education - sane Intellectual Property laws - entrepreneur-friendly tax laws somewhere on their territory - lots of developer/tech-savvy legislators The last point is the crucial one going forward. The first 3 points are the advantageous policies one can foresee now. The developer/tech-savvy legislators will know the right thing to do in the unforeseeable future.

hugh3 16y ago
Ah, I am reminded of an old syllogism (stolen and modified from Cvltvre Made Stupid, one of my favourite books growing up): 1. Society should be run by the most qualified people 2. I am a tech-savvy software developer 3. Therefore, society should be run by tech-savvy software developers.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Shoving words into my mouth? I am not saying this nation should be entirely run by the tech-savvy. I'm saying that there should be representation for that sort of expertise amongst its legislators. If the doctors of country X noted that there was a disturbing misunderstanding of medical issues in the legislature, I don't think they'd be unreasonable to suggest that perhaps a few representatives with medical degrees would help.

schacon 16y ago

I did actually run for Congress a few years ago (http://www.politicsandtechnology.com/2005/10/scott_chacon_fo.html http://www.politicsandtechnology.com/2005/10/scott_chacon_fo...), so I can tell you as a developer and having been a political candidate, that being a developer is much, much easier. I'm a relatively outgoing person for being a software developer - I do a lot of public speaking and so forth, but putting yourself up as a political candidate is incredibly stressful. You have to be an expert in everything - tech issues, yes, but also farm issues, banking issues, environmental issues, taxes, poverty, unemployment, zoning, etc. It involves walking door to door and telling people face to face that they should trust you and give you their vote and hopefully money and time. You have to ask people for money - all the time. You are asking for a job representing everyone around you, so it's hard to relax - you feel like you're slacking when you should be asking for votes or money or studying the issues. It's also helpful to be very, very partisan. If you're moderate, the people that volunteer for causes like yours will seem extreme for you and saying that people on the other side are not horrible people can lose you volunteers. You have to juggle that. If you think office politics or developer cliques are bad or distasteful, wait until you see what the political circles are like. Everyone has an opinion (including people like us) and knows how everything should be run. When you don't do what they suggest, they might leave. I love the idea - obviously I invested a lot of my time in it. I think technology can seriously improve our governance for the better and having tech aware legislators would be a good thing. However, before you do it, know what you're getting into. People think politicians are corrupt and stupid, but in general I think they're mostly smart, hard working and want to honestly help. Running for office is complex, stressful and trying. Before you throw your hat into the ring, contact someone you like, volunteer your time, help them understand these issues, build them these tools and convince them they are worth it. You might be surprised how approachable many of them are. Then, if you still feel the need to replace them, go for it. And let me know, I'd love to hear about it.