Even though I am not a U.S. engineer, your concerns regarding this topic are ours as well. Here in Colombia, South America, we are having exactly the same kinds of problems with deregulation and with the utilization of a partial model that has put the accent on the economic issue only. We have abandoned the transmission planning and construction of transmission lines on the one hand, and, from the point of view of operation, we are working with a rigid grid because of the economic constraints on generation, resulting in a system that cannot serve as a real-time system. This, I believe, is the real reason so many blackouts occur.

—Edgar Paternina
Ingeniero Electricista
Area Centro Regional de Despacho
Empresas Públicas de Medellín
Colombia, South America
epaterni@eeppm.com

******************

I’d like to respond to Ms. Carper’s critique of President Bush’s plans for "rightsizing" government.

Ms. Carper’s article begins with the statement that a corollary to Bush’s national agenda is that "...government is bad."  I doubt this assertion has much basis in fact, but I respect her right to have an opinion of the "ulterior motives" of the Republican President.  (I tend to distrust politicians myself.)  However, I too have an opinion of Bush’s agenda, and mine is that he would like to reduce spending in ways that make every tax dollar go toward something useful to all Americans, rather than pork and waste.  To that end, Bush is setting policy (quoted in Carper’s article) that encourages federal agencies to spend money more wisely.

I fully support Bush’s efforts to reduce wasteful government that either benefits only a select group of American society—rather than all—or has otherwise outlived its usefulness.  The fact is that all government agencies, from local municipalities to the highest levels of the federal bureaucracy, suffer from inefficiencies and waste.  Government is meant to spend, so the inefficiencies of government were built in.  Meanwhile, business is meant to make money, meaning they have high incentive to make operations efficient and cost-minimal.  All government can benefit from the advances made in the private sector in terms of tools, methods, and technologies.

Bush’s agenda aims to make government more efficient.  This will benefit all taxpayers in several ways.  By outsourcing functions that the private sector has built expertise in, the government stands to save money through these efficiencies.  This reduces the tax burden, allowing the tax cuts that Bush favors.  It also creates jobs for the private sector, in the form of consulting opportunities and service providers.  Realistically, outsourcing will also eliminate jobs for some government workers.  Historically, however, outsourcing results in employing these same government workers in the same jobs, albeit working for a contractor that expects performance, rather than for a government that expects the "minimum acceptable."  The federal government has usually (I wish I could say "always," but that just isn’t true) saved money through outsourcing, mainly in the long-term cost of employee benefits and pensions.  Again, the private sector has learned how to cover these overhead costs more cheaply.

When taxpayers have less of a tax burden (i.e., more money in their pockets) and their employers are making a profit with a secure contract, people tend to spend more.  This is the economic stimulation we all keep hearing about.  I’m no economist, but Bush’s plan seems like common sense to me:  efficient operations = less cost = less government spending = less tax burden = happier wallets = more spending = booming economy again.

I support Bromley’s insistence that government must continue investing heavily in scientific advancement.  But rather than increase the budget, we ought to be able to "find" money through efficiencies and smarter business practices in our government operations.  And, it has been my observation that there is plenty of room for improving operations while still increasing the money being funneled into our science programs.

—Bob Pedigo
IEEE Member
Birmingham, AL

******************

Should engineering and technical organizations be involved in formulating election reforms that could involve technology? Of course.

I am particularly alarmed that the related Policy Perspectives article seemed to frame the question as inevitable. For anyone involved in technology to think that the Internet will now or in the near future be suitable for voting under the Australian rules (the democratic process we have adopted) shows ignorance of the network weaknesses, but more fundamentally a complete lack of the system requirements.

As engineers, we have a responsiblity to understand systems we are designing or replacing. Regardless of the eventual implementation flaws, it is predominantly the misunderstanding of the implicit requirements that make the project fail. Not to be understated as well is the cost/benefit achieved by the replacement system. Current technology, which is about 99.75% accurate, costs pennies per vote. The most simple electronic systems proposed, which do not meet the requirements of the existing system, and have unknown accuracy in practice, will cost $3 per vote or more.

There is plenty of publicity—with little substance—available from e-vote equipment vendors who are eagerly anticipating a huge market opportunity. There is, however, also a ton of well reasoned material available in the Communications of the ACM (recent special issue) and the RISKS digests, among other sources. It seems the IEEE has been keeping its head in the sand.

(My views do not represent those of my company.)

—Peter A. Pongracz-Bartha
IEEE Member
IEEE Computer Society member, ACM member

******************

On Professional Licensure …