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

601–610 of 638 posts

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#601

Post by spyckie2 »

joshuaellinger wrote: post #346

I'm surprised nobody mentioned good old H. Ross Perot, the Texas billionaire who made Bill Clinton president in 1992. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot ) Perot peeled off enough libertarian voters from the Republicans to enable a Democratic victory. It odd looking back at him. He was not a proto-Trump exactly but he ran against the NAFTA free trade agreement in a way that looks a lot like how Trump ran again…

> We will support candidates for office who align with our core principles so that we can reform the system and make it more responsive to the American people. This means that we will support Republicans, Democrats, and Independents - as well as candidates identifying themselves as Forward Party members.

Yang definitely hates Trump. He's not about to put him into power any time soon.

Yang is more about wielding influence on political discussion and trying to move the country away from incumbency than anything else. I really don't foresee anyone building a campaign on the forward party, but I can see a democrat or republican leveraging the forward party's ideas in the right environment to get endorsements from it to win in tight elections.

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#602

Post by alxndr »

bobthepanda wrote: post #590
dbingham wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most localities in the US are dominated by one of the major parties to the point where the primary becomes the election. That doesn't leave any room for a third party to break in either. Too many people never learn about local candidates and end up just pulling a straight ticket lever. This is the end result of decades of gerrymandering.

If you run a third party that is appealing enough, you can certainly have a go at it. I just have literally never seen, I don't know, the Green Party put up a candidate for local city elections. It's not like party establishments haven't had candidates lose despite all odds. And Independents have had good streaks at lower offices (e.g. Bernie Sanders, Michael Bloomberg)

Depends where you are: In the recent California governor recall, there were two Green Party candidates and one Libertarian.

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#603

Post by detaro »

alxndr wrote: post #602
bobthepanda wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you run a third party that is appealing enough, you can certainly have a go at it. I just have literally never seen, I don't know, the Green Party put up a candidate for local city elections. It's not like party establishments haven't had candidates lose despite all odds. And Independents have had good streaks at lower offices (e.g. Bernie Sanders, Michael Bloomberg)

Depends where you are: In the recent California governor recall, there were two Green Party candidates and one Libertarian.

Governor is already a bit high-level to really have a chance at breaking through, isn't it? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#604

Post by smolder »

cpursley wrote: post #594
smolder wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 5 pointed star is not a communist symbol, except maybe according to some communists. There are 50 of them on the US flag, as just one example.

It absolutely is, I'm living in a former communist country and these stars are still everywhere: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_star

Okay, I'll cede that red ones specifically carry that meaning. I thought you were claiming all 5 pointed stars as such. I still don't feel that the silhouette of a (white, 5 pointed) star created with red lines is quite the same thing. I could however, to your point, see it being interpreted that way by Fox News, who will claim that damn near anything is communist if they are against it politically.

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#605

Post by dllthomas »

lalaland1125 wrote: post #86
endisneigh wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

"Ranked choice" is a range of methods and usually people mean instant-runoff. Recognizing that no system is perfect, I nonetheless have significant worries about instant runoff.

Imagine we have a society that's predominately split into two religions, where members of each religion would love a theocracy of their flavor, would settle for secular tolerance, and is vigorously (sometimes violently!) opposed to theocracy of another flavor.

If we have three candidates, one representing each of these positions, and everyone votes their true preferences then we see maybe 40% theocracy A, 40% theocracy B, 20% secular tolerance. The very first thing instant-runoff does is throw out the compromise, and we chose violence and strife.

If we generally believe that "a good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied" then IRV will never choose a good compromise. I worry that that's a bad way of choosing what we do as a society.

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#606

Post by hakfoo »

bena wrote: post #534
realce wrote: post #353

I raised over 400k for Andrew's POTUS run and devoted a year of my life to running his official Reddit (104k subs at peak), then joined a SuperPAC to further his positions after the run. The campaign team was full of fools who squandered almost every good turn received, most campaign workers were paid less than minimum wage, and Andrew eventually stole the pac's name and branding - Humanity Forward - put everyone out…

I am not that surprised. He kept going on and on about taxing "tech" to fund UBI. And it would work out and it would be like Alaska with their oil fund thing. But, when you get down to it, what is "tech"? How is it different from just anything? We use the word "tech" to essentially describe any business that is based primarily on software. Where software is a major focus. Because, like chemicals, technology is litera…

Devil's advocate, but starting with a broad based "who to tax" concept allows for more room to horse trade.

If he said front and centre "I want to personally dangle Jeff Bezos and Sergei Brin over the edge of a tall building and shake until their wallets fall out" that gives one clear target to fight over. Starting with an amorphous blob target lets everyone involved say "Oh, we'll exclude X, Y, and Z...." and feel like they won something, while still getting what you really wanted in the end.

It's why they always talk about the budget proposals as "$3.5 trillion" or "$1.8 trillion" without anyone ever saying "my real red-line is the $12k of subsidies to the local dirt farmers."

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#607

Post by hakfoo »

bobthepanda wrote: post #551
dbingham wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no room for a third party to start gaining ground in the US. We already have a third and fourth party - the Libertarian and Green parties - that have been trying to gain traction for years. Neither has been able to. The Greens came the closest with Nader in 2000. The reason for that is structural. The Democratic and Republican parties have structurally built themselves into the election system in a way that…

The problem is strategy. Going for broke by running a presidential candidate is a surefire way to lose , and no one really donates to parties that lose. Which is a problem, because presidential campaigns cost a crapton of money; Bernie 2016 cost $220M and that was the primary. If you look at successful third or fourth parties in FPTP nations, they are generally running lots of local campaigns, which are cheaper, give…

I wonder if it's seen as a necessary evil for perceived relevance. If you aren't running a presidential candidate, it feels like an admission that you're a local player without the resources to run a big, expensive campaign.

I wonder if there's anything to be learned from those weird "secondary" parties you see in some states. It will be like "Working Families Party" or whatever, with a Democratic or Republican candidate for President and few unique of down-ballot names.

I'm not sure exactly how those work. Might be just a way to use some legacy "default ballot access" In my state, a candidate supplied by any of the four largest parties would get on the ballot, even if only 15 people actually voted for the Green or Libertarian.

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#608

Post by simorley »

netcan wrote: post #325

What's missing here, IMO, is a party. Who's with him? Do you have defectors from the 2 parties? Independents or popular figures joining up? Candidates being stood? A political party is not a manifesto, it's an organisation. I actually think there's room for a party to start gaining ground in the US. There are so many elected offices that the surface area is huge. Great for "guerilla tactics." IE, earning easy victori…

"This means that we will support Republicans, Democrats, and Independents - as well as candidates identifying themselves as Forward Party members."

It's not a party. It's more of a organization to fund politicians who align with their "core values".

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#609

Post by chillacy »

dbingham wrote: post #477
netcan wrote: post #325

What's missing here, IMO, is a party. Who's with him? Do you have defectors from the 2 parties? Independents or popular figures joining up? Candidates being stood? A political party is not a manifesto, it's an organisation. I actually think there's room for a party to start gaining ground in the US. There are so many elected offices that the surface area is huge. Great for "guerilla tactics." IE, earning easy victori…

There is no room for a third party to start gaining ground in the US. We already have a third and fourth party - the Libertarian and Green parties - that have been trying to gain traction for years. Neither has been able to. The Greens came the closest with Nader in 2000. The reason for that is structural. The Democratic and Republican parties have structurally built themselves into the election system in a way that…

From his podcast interview it sounds like this is a “party” like the DSA is a “party”: it throws its support behind more mainstream candidates who advance their platform (mainly ranked choice voting for now). But being independent allows them to throw support behind both Ds and Rs.

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#610

Post by qPM9l3XJrF »

realce wrote: post #353

I raised over 400k for Andrew's POTUS run and devoted a year of my life to running his official Reddit (104k subs at peak), then joined a SuperPAC to further his positions after the run. The campaign team was full of fools who squandered almost every good turn received, most campaign workers were paid less than minimum wage, and Andrew eventually stole the pac's name and branding - Humanity Forward - put everyone out…

Yang was an outsider who didn't have access to a deep bench of campaign talent the way an established candidate would. It seems entirely possible to me that you are correct but Yang himself isn't to blame -- amateurs were the best available people he had to hire.

In any case, he is right about the duopoly. In order to overcome the duopoly, we need the involvement of major public figures. I haven't seen many volunteer--I'll take what I can get. I would prefer he advocate for approval voting though: https://electionscience.org/

Post reply on HN