Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

forwardparty.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 638 posts

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#81

Post by caeril »

seibelj wrote: post #3
aazaa wrote: post #2

The Platform page lists a selection of positions that I think would not be very controversial. https://www.forwardparty.com/platform Surprisingly, the issue that Yang is known for, UBI, is not on the list. UBI is, however, present here: https://www.forwardparty.com/whyforward I wonder if that was accidental.

The US already received a more politically palatable form of UBI when the automatic child tax credit hit. Couples making up to 400k get money direct deposited every month per child. 0% chance this will ever be rescinded. I would say Yang introduced an issue single-handedly into the conversation and it was implemented quite quickly without any discussion because of the unique pandemic situation. Will be interesting to…

Yes, I got my child tax credit early. Moving application of a credit I normally get anyway up 6 months is exactly the same thing as UBI. Good point.

I'm sure I'm going to appreciate this April 15th 2022 when my liability is much larger than usual because my credit was already paid out.

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#82

Post by whakim »

endisneigh wrote: post #12

One thing people misunderstand about third parties is that they don't need to win. If they're structured correctly (this is by far the most difficult bit), they can have significant political influence without ever winning a single election. For example, love him or hate him, Ralph Nader probably swayed the 2000 Election and had incredible influence over the outcome (for better or worse). Coming back to the Forward P…

I'm not sure this argument really holds. In the United States, third parties can have a significant influence on elections by siphoning off votes (see, Nader or maybe Perot), but they tend to have much more muted effects on policy. I would argue that Andrew Yang did more for the cause of the UBI as a loser in a widely-watched Democratic presidential primary than he would have been able to as a third-party candidate struggling to qualify for the ballot in most states. If his new goal is to focus on ranked-choice voting, I struggle to understand why the calculus would be any different.

I agree with you in wishing we had more than two parties to choose from; for one, studies have shown that negative partisanship is much lower in democracies with more than two major parties.

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#83

Post by piou »

spyckie2 wrote: post #45
endisneigh wrote: post #12

One thing people misunderstand about third parties is that they don't need to win. If they're structured correctly (this is by far the most difficult bit), they can have significant political influence without ever winning a single election. For example, love him or hate him, Ralph Nader probably swayed the 2000 Election and had incredible influence over the outcome (for better or worse). Coming back to the Forward P…

This. I think the best way to think about this party is that the goal isn't to win elections (get the majority of votes, beat out the republican/democratic party) - it is to wield influence via a platform. If you think Andrew Yang is establishing a political party to win a government race, I think its a bit too naive. I think he is trying to use a third party lever to influence a bunch of small things to snowball int…

> If you think Andrew Yang is establishing a political party to win a government race, I think its a bit too naive.

> I think he is trying to use a third party lever to influence a bunch of small things to snowball into larger things...

If we're talking about what we're _thinking_, I think Andrew Yang is establishing a political party to make a lot of money, whether it's through direct donations or a higher profile that turns into more financial opportunity elsewhere.

I don't discount the possibility of him doing it just for the political influence, though.

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#84

Post by _jal »

seibelj wrote: post #3
aazaa wrote: post #2

The Platform page lists a selection of positions that I think would not be very controversial. https://www.forwardparty.com/platform Surprisingly, the issue that Yang is known for, UBI, is not on the list. UBI is, however, present here: https://www.forwardparty.com/whyforward I wonder if that was accidental.

The US already received a more politically palatable form of UBI when the automatic child tax credit hit. Couples making up to 400k get money direct deposited every month per child. 0% chance this will ever be rescinded. I would say Yang introduced an issue single-handedly into the conversation and it was implemented quite quickly without any discussion because of the unique pandemic situation. Will be interesting to…

It is hardly 'U' when limited to those who produce children.

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#85

Post by wonderwonder »

someguydave wrote: post #24
tryptophan wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh I support electoral reform, but why the obsession with ranked choice? It is the second WORST voting system after first past the post, which is what we have now.

The worst voting system is allowing irresponsible people to vote.

Are irresponsible people anyone that votes counter to your interests?

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#86

Post by lalaland1125 »

endisneigh wrote: post #75
lalaland1125 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ranked choice has a lot of advantages over the alternatives that are often underestimated by people too worried about theory. The big advantage of ranked choice is that it is simple to understand and implement. In elections, it is essential that the average person understand exactly how the system works. An election result that people don't understand/trust is worse than useless.

Approval voting is simpler, doesn't require ballots to change and has the same effect in practice (but not in theory). I'd be surprised if an average person finds ranked choice voting to be simpler to understand than approval or FPTP.

Yeah, this is one huge advantage of approval voting.

The main issue with approval voting though is that it's much harder for individuals to use when voting.

It's tricky to figure out when to bullet vote vs not bullet vote.

Simplicity to use != simplicity to count

I think ranked choice is in that sweet spot where it is reasonably simple to use and simple to count.

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#87

Post by toss1 »

endisneigh wrote: post #31
lalaland1125 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main issue is that third parties often have the opposite effect that their supporters want. They draw voters from the more aligned main party, causing that aligned main party to lose elections. Third parties hurt the interests of their own supporters. There are good reasons why the Democratic Party tends to support the Libertarian Party and the Republican Party tends to support the Green Party [1]. 1. https://www…

This isn't necessarily true. The nuance in the third party vs. aligned party is by definition the distinction between them. Depending on what you prioritize an effective third party can force the aligned party to change. From the point of view of the third party supporter, this would be exactly what you would want. In other words, an effective third party can be a great catalyst toward making some minor (or major) ch…

Not in a First-Past-The-Post voting system, which is used in most of the US (&afaik, in all presidential elections).

The 1PPP systems systemically trend to metastable 2-party states. Of course 3rd parties will have distinctions from their closer main parties, but it is almost impossible that a 3rd party will triangulate exactly between the two major parties.

This means that in practice, a vote for a 3rd party is effectively a vote for your worst major party option. The 3rd party acts as a spoiler - always.

This is NOT true in Ranked Choice Voting systems. There, the 3rd party spoiler issue goes away, and the 3rd parties have a real chance of being able to get elected & have a real influence.

To have the effect you want (vs some perverse effect), you must vote strategically in the system you have.

That said, it is long past the time that we implemented a few upgrades from the systems of 200 years ago, such as upgrading to Ranked Choice.

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#88

Post by anonporridge »

a_t48 wrote: post #6
aazaa wrote: post #2

The Platform page lists a selection of positions that I think would not be very controversial. https://www.forwardparty.com/platform Surprisingly, the issue that Yang is known for, UBI, is not on the list. UBI is, however, present here: https://www.forwardparty.com/whyforward I wonder if that was accidental.

I'm tempted to back them purely for Ranked Choice Voting. Will be keeping an eye on this for the future.

Any politician that doesn't commit to RCV reforms gets docked in my mind.

I sincerely hope Newsom gets successfully primaried and has no chance of a Presidential run, https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Gavin-Newsom-ve...

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#89

Post by AmericanChopper »

lalaland1125 wrote: post #22
endisneigh wrote: post #12

One thing people misunderstand about third parties is that they don't need to win. If they're structured correctly (this is by far the most difficult bit), they can have significant political influence without ever winning a single election. For example, love him or hate him, Ralph Nader probably swayed the 2000 Election and had incredible influence over the outcome (for better or worse). Coming back to the Forward P…

The main issue is that third parties often have the opposite effect that their supporters want. They draw voters from the more aligned main party, causing that aligned main party to lose elections. Third parties hurt the interests of their own supporters. There are good reasons why the Democratic Party tends to support the Libertarian Party and the Republican Party tends to support the Green Party [1]. 1. https://www…

They provide a very important mechanism that allows for the main party to fail in a way that it otherwise couldn’t. The only way for a “good” (according to the constituency) idea to succeed is if the “bad” ones fail. If bad ideas are prevented from failing, then the efficiency of the entire system declines.

In the two party system, the only ways for a party to fail are via apathy (not bothering to vote at all), and total defection to the other side. The small party allows voters to signal to the main party that they are failing to adequately represent certain elements of their constituency. It forces the main parties to consider all the components of their base, otherwise they’re can safely abandon them to some extent while they fight over the middle.

It’s arguably less efficient in the US due to an electoral structure that’s quite unfavorable for small parties, but it still serves an important purpose. It doesn’t make sense if you only look at one single election, but the election is the most important feedback mechanism in a democracy, and they typically happen rather infrequently. So you can look at one election, and conclude that a minor party cost one side a particular victory. But if the loser decides to examine why they lost, there’s a clear incentive to improve how they represent their constituents next time.

It’s not highly efficient, but no democracy is. Perhaps the US more than some others, but even if you look at the worlds ‘direct democracies’, you couldn’t conclude that asking the public a handful of extra yes/no questions every year is perfectly efficient either.

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#90

Post by ameetgaitonde »

Edit: I was wrong, he's doing exactly what I thought he wasn't. See Hannibalhorn's comment below for more details.

I'm glad he supports Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV), but I think he's going about this the wrong way.

Right now, he's creating a new third-party within an electoral system that effectively defaults to two existing and dominant parties. Those two parties currently control every federal and state legislature and/or election committee that has the power to alter how elections are run.

Working against them, in a system that is extremely hostile to third-parties, makes it very hard to effect change because you are almost always guaranteed to be a loser, and be viewed as an opponent.

If his interests are truly about implementing RCV nationwide, a better course of action would be to endorse and campaign for the Democratic and Republican candidates that are willing to commit to implementing RCV.

In any state where you can get a filibuster-proof majority of those candidates elected, you would have a much better chance of changing the electoral system.

Simply put, lobbying for RCV would be more effective than introducing a third-party within our current electoral system.

Post reply on HN