Andrew Yang Is Still Trying To Move Forward
"We need to break up the duopoly, and the mechanical way to break up the duopoly is by shifting to open primaries and ranked choice votings so that every perspective has a shot."

For a politician who's never won anything, Andrew Yang is pretty famous. Yang's 2020 presidential campaign failed to earn any delegates to the Democratic National Convention after getting about 5 percent in the Iowa caucuses and 3 percent in the New Hampshire primary. He came in fourth in New York City's 2021 ranked choice Democratic primary for mayor. Despite his political struggles, Yang is now launching a new political party, the Forward Party.
While Yang and the Forward Party aren't libertarian, there are several planks of interest in their platform. It includes not just the universal basic income (UBI) proposal that made Yang famous but also ranked choice voting, nonpartisan primaries, and efforts to make the government more transparent and accessible.
In October, Reason's Nick Gillespie spoke with Yang about the Forward Party, the libertarian pitch for a UBI, and the government's response to the pandemic.
Q: You've created a new political party. What's the elevator pitch for Forward?
A: We can tell the duopoly is killing us. It's turning us against each other. Political stress is at civil war levels. Political violence is becoming more and more of an inevitability. The question is, how can we bring ourselves back from the brink? And I know that libertarians have been arguing for a shift from the duopoly for years and years.
I am now with you. We need to break up the duopoly, and the mechanical way to break up the duopoly is by shifting to open primaries and ranked choice votings so that every perspective has a shot.
Q: Walk us through ranked choice voting. It was used in the Democratic primary for the New York City mayoral race. How does it work and what has the experience been so far?
A: Ranked choice voting allows you to rank multiple candidates, and the voting continues until some candidate gets a majority. If you were theoretically to vote for a minor candidate as your first choice, and then that person doesn't have a ton of votes, then your vote then flows through to your second choice, who could be the Republican or the Democrat or the independent or whomever.
This is a better, fairer system. It allows you to vote your true preferences. It rewards people that appeal to a broader coalition and makes it so that if you have a minority interest, then people will still want to listen to you to try and get your votes and your voters.
Q: Some famous free market supporters, such as Milton Friedman and Charles Murray, have advocated for various versions of universal basic income programs. What's your pitch to libertarians?
A: This is one thing that I believe I'm fundamentally aligned with libertarians on. I think people know best how to solve their own problems and what they need, [more] than a government program. I think that a lot of these bureaucracies are very inefficient. They're also somewhat punitive. I talk to people who are subject to them—they live in fear and anxiety all the time that they're going to fill out a form wrong or miss an interview and then have it taken away from them. There is, to me, this false confidence in what our government can deliver in many quarters. A lot of the people who make these arguments aren't actually experiencing the labyrinth or the madness, and I find that deeply frustrating.
Q: A lot of what you talk about in your work is the long-term decline in trust and confidence in the government. How would you grade the federal efforts when it came to dealing with the pandemic?
A: I think the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] was truly embarrassing early on. Our initial response was abysmal. The communication around it has been problematic consistently. The great victory to me has been the availability of vaccines after they were developed. I was pleasantly surprised at how ubiquitous vaccines were, so that was a win for our government. But it's been uneven, I would say. And I think right now we're still dealing with a lot of anxiety and uncertainty and disruption.
This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity. For a podcast version, subscribe to The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
When do I get my monthly check?
Get $192 of an hour from Google!…Yes this is Authentic as I just got my first payout and was really awesome because it was the biggest number of $24413 in a week. (qd06) It seems Appears Unbelievable but you won’t forgive yourself. if you do not check it go this site…… CLICK NOW
Apparently government = vaccines.
This explains a lot of how progressive regimes have been acting.
Get $192 off an hour from Google!… Yes, this is Authentic as I just got my first payout, and was really awesome because it was the biggest number of $24413 in a week. (Hax20) It seems Appears Unbelievable but you won’t forgive yourself.
If you do not check it go this site…… Visit Here
Sorry, but ranked voting does not do it for me. The actual enumeration of a legally cast vote does it for me. If I had wanted to vote for the 'first loser', I would have.
As for the duopoly, Yang is......late to the party. Color me skeptical of his anti-duopoly stance. It seems he adopted this outlook after being thoroughly trounced in the Team D primary.
There have been multiple examples where ranked voting ended up with the candidate with the 3rd most votes won. It doesn't actually provide the candidate who most voters chose, and in fact removes their vote.
People who only vote for a single candidate often have their vote removed completely.
The only ones that should be afraid of ranked choice voting are the elites of the two major parties. Rank choice gives people a chance to have their say on the people they want to government. Far too often people have to pick the best of two bad choices. Ranked choice gives me the chance to pick who I really want and still preserve my choice for the lesser of a bad choice.
I would add that it could save money spent of primary election that have very low turn outs. Why not wrap the primary into the election and be done?
Ranked choice sucks. We have it and it is insipid. Ideally, elections would have little consequence since folks would mostly be voting with their dollars and feet. But in the wealth redistribution welfare state that is the US, the outcomes are important.
Can you be more specific about what you don't like about ranked choice? Is it more than your candidate did not win.
This guy has a small handful of good ideas, and a lot of really terrible ones. Most of the "wisdom" he dispenses is at about the level of what you see in a daily horoscope or what comes out of the generic, bland fortune cookies they have at every all-you-can-eat Chinese buffet.
And the worst part of all is that he's a massive promoter of the entitlement mentality that is absolutely wrecking this country. In short, thanks but no thanks.
Making him the perfect candidate for Reason's NY/DC cocktail klatch staff!
"This guy has a small handful of good ideas, and a lot of really terrible ones."
Pretty much how I feel. Definitely diagnoses some things correctly: the hyper-partisanship (though hard to miss that one), the essentially ignored and at times despised working class, the future workforce/economy with automation about to put even more people out of a career.
But he rarely comes to a palatable solution. I actually like ranked choice voting myself. Frankly any change to the current system especially where the DNC cabal conspires with the media to basically pick the ticket they want. But I cant get on board with UBI. Entitlements are already bad enough, we dont need to throw more gas on the socialism fire and just cut checks for everyone. That isnt an adult solution.
I do like that he brushes off a lot of the anti-racism, woke, CRT stuff as trash. Though that lack of pandering will almost ensure the DNC elites never let him through a primary.
Definitely diagnoses some things correctly...but he rarely comes to a palatable solution
This describes a lot of leftists quite well. They're capable of seeing problems right in front of them, but they're unable to reason about how those problems arose and why their perennial do-it-all elixir of "take money from billionaires and throw it at my problem" will only make things worse.
I could support UBI if they repealed all the other forms of welfare we have already. Give people the money and let them buy their own groceries, pay their own rent, purchase their own health insurance, save for their own retirement, etc etc
The problem is, some people don't make good choices. They'd gamble with some of the money, end up short of food for their kids, and come bawling for more, whining about no one cares, look at their starving children, and the bleeding hearts would blame society instead of the gambler.
Ranked choice just seems to be an end around on FPTP. Instead of such an opaque system I'd rather just go all the way and switch to some kind of proportional representation scheme.
There's enough opportunities for fraud with one vote per person for each office. With five the potential for malfeasance grows exponentially.
But I cant get on board with UBI. Entitlements are already bad enough, we dont need to throw more gas on the socialism fire and just cut checks for everyone. That isnt an adult solution.
Welfare is part of the current social contract, for better or worse. UBI along the lines of a negative income tax holds promise for a libertarian compromise with that reality. But it's proper implementation is a pipe dream.
It is an adult solution if done right, which it won't be. $100 per day (for example) each day (to avoid the first of the month problem), no restrictions on spending, and (most importantly) an end to all other income support programs and a glide path to wind down the third-party payer system in medicine.
It's like he's frustrated with a jigsaw puzzle and starts mashing pieces in even when they clearly aren't good fits by color or shape.
Who doesn't? I mean, seriously, talk to anyone long enough about enough subjects, and you'll see. It's why so many startups fail quickly, and a few make big bucks.
Yawn
If he thinks the best name for it is "Forward", count me out.
It will be a Great Leap.
Exactly, sounds like F-word. Now he's a five-time loser.
Ranked choice appeals to technicians, but it's too complicated for the average voter. Approval voting is a better alternative, but no voting system is perfect.
So this guy is the new Justin Amash?
UBI was the worst libertarian idea since the draft.
And California already has open primaries. They call it "top 2" and it has destroyed third parties.
If Social Security is the third rail of electoral politics then what happens when everyone is on it?
Second, ubi was proposed as a substitute for all government welfare. Since neither Yang or anybody wouldn’t and couldn’t get rid of them, it’s a nonstarter.
Yang went from pseudo-hip socialist to obviously Koch-funded asshole. My god there must be a lot of money out there for Democrat-bashing "cool kids" like Shapiro, Rogan, Rubin, and Yang. I guess all you have to do is find people willing to have no principles but greed. Throw a rock.
"Political stress is at civil war levels." No, it's not. I love you, Reason, but please do not allow such rhetoric to go unchallenged.
Ranked Choice Voting as described by Yang is basically Australia's system, which we call Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Yang really should do his homework. First, Australia has been essentially a two-party system for the over a century that it has been using IRV. Empirically, we can say it doesn't deliver.
IRV also uses a discard method which would properly be considered ILLEGAL in the US. Discard means that not all votes on a person's ballot will be counted. This also means that the true "intent" of the voter - something most states require - can't be honored.
The only system that actually will deliver is the Round Robin or Instant Round Robin system developed my 18th Century mathematician and scientist, the Marquis de Condorcet. This system pairs every candidate head-to-head and doesn't require that voters game the system - they are not punished by the voting system as is the case with IRV. Check out the non-monotonicity problem (which I call the "rank reversal paradox").
I'm now a candidate for Indiana Secretary of State and I'm running on getting Indiana to adopt RR voting. I expect to have a video of a TED-like talk in a couple of weeks.
Nick tends to interview someone once then turn that into a series of articles. The equivalent of increasing font size, margins, header and footer.