Here's Where It Gets Interesting - How to Move Forward: Changing the Two Party System with Andrew Yang

Episode Date: August 19, 2022

On this episode of Here's Where It Gets Interesting, Sharon has a conversation with former presidential candidate Andrew Yang. After coming off the campaign trail in 2020, Yang began searching for a solution that could change the two-party system in US politics. He recently founded the Forward Party with the hopes to give the American people more viable options for leaders who aim to represent their constituency over party expectations and financiers. Join us as we talk about both the goals and the trials associated with changing the infrastructure of political campaigning. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hello, friends. Welcome. So excited you are joining me today. And I am so excited to be sharing my conversation with Andrew Yang. You are tired of the left-right binary in the United States. If you're tired of your only choices being the Democrats and the Republicans, you're going to want to hear about the Forward Party and about the plans Andrew Yang and others have for it. Let's dive in. I'm Sharon McMahon, and welcome to the Sharon Says So podcast. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you for having me, Sharon. I too am pumped. I've been looking forward to this for a long time. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So I would love to have you give people

who have not been following you, who are not familiar with your movement to create a viable third party, the forward party in the United States, who have not been following all of your previous campaign adventures, give everybody just a very brief overview about your background and how you arrived at this point. Oh, sure. So I'm the son of immigrants. My father's a physicist. My mother was a statistician. So I was a very nerdy Asian child. Grew up not really thinking I was going to ever do anything public or political. Became an entrepreneur. Ran a company that was acquired in 2009. And then I started a nonprofit that helped create jobs in the Midwest and the South primarily.

And I became convinced that our economy was transforming in fundamental ways that were going to push more Americans to the side. And then Donald Trump became our president in 2016, which I took as, frankly, an outgrowth of the economic transformation. And so I decided to run for president primarily to inform Americans about these economic transformations. I proposed something very dramatic, a universal basic income as a way to help us get through this time. And I'm still trying to solve the same problems I ever was, but I've become convinced that there is no solution that does not involve mending our broken political system. So that's what I'm working on now. And what ways do you think the political system is broken? And I mean,

I know that's a conversation where you could be like, how much time do we have? But what are some of the biggest, like the most glaring problems from your perspective? Well, I tried to dig in to answer those questions when I came off the trail in 2020. So I come off the trail. I'm a surrogate for Joe Biden, but I still feel despondent about the direction of American politics. And so I sit down and dig in. I read a lot of books. I interview a bunch of people. And I conclude that we are being set up to fail, Sharon. This two-party system in particular has carved up the country like a turkey, said you get that half, we get this half. It's not actually half. I mean, it's really like you get the rural areas and we get the urban areas. And then the two parties meet

in DC, but they don't meet where you have very, very strong political incentives for them not to ever collaborate or cooperate. And that's because of the closed party primary system where right now, as we're having this conversation, the congressional approval rating is 20% or so, like four to five Americans unhappy. But the reelection rate of individual members is 94%, where if you're a sports fan, that's a better win rate than the Jordan or Chicago Bulls or the Durant era Warriors. So then you say, how the heck is it that there's such a disconnect? And it's because both parties have said, you know what? Again, you take this turf, I take this turf. So 90% of the congressional districts are uncompetitive in the general.

You know, if it's going to be a Democrat or Republican that wins. And so what this means in practice is that if you're a legislator, let's say a Republican legislator, and you lean across the island compromise, your job security goes down very, very fast. Because the only way you can lose your job is if you get primaried by someone within your own party, they'll typically be very extreme. And so you say, you know what, to keep my job, I'll just stay in my corner, yell at the other side, and then raise some money, and then I keep my job forever. So we're being set up by these polarized

political incentives. And then the media organizations are separating us into ideological tribes saying, you know, we're good, they're bad. And then you have social media pouring gasoline on the whole thing. So now you have 42% of both Democrats and Republicans who view the other side as corrupt and a threat to the country. That percentage is just going up and up. The question you have to ask is, where does this end? I mean, it ends in tears. It ends in catastrophe. So this is what I figured out during 2020. I wrote a book about it called Forward. And then I said, how the heck do you get out of this mess? And so I figured out that there are two ways out of this mess. And this is what I'm now devoting all my time to. Number one is you have to change the

incentive structure for legislators so that they answer to 51% of us instead of just the most hyper-partisan 10% of Dems or Republicans. And that sounds hard, but it turns out that half of the states have ballot initiative measures where you can just change the primary system. And if you think this is impossible, Alaska actually did this in 2020. It's why Senator Lisa Murkowski is the only Republican senator who voted to impeach Donald Trump because she doesn't have a Republican primary anymore.

By the way, if there was a Republican primary, she loses her job for sure. Just like we're seeing with everyone else. Her approval rating among Republicans in Alaska went to 6%, but she doesn't have a primary. So she can go straight to essentially the general population. And a half dozen Republican senators have actually gone to Lisa Murkowski and said, I envy you so much because you can just do things and not have to go through the

Republican primary. So what they did in Alaska, we can do in 24 other states. Imagine liberating 6, 8, 10, 12 US.S. senators to do what they think is right for us rather than the 10% on the side. That's our first big way out of this mess is to change the incentives. What does that mean to change the primary system? What does that look like on the ground? Does it mean completely eliminating the primary system and moving entirely towards ranked choice voting? What does that look like in your perspective? Oh, so all you have to do is look at what happened in Alaska. So the folks behind this went to other Alaskans because they were in Alaska and

said, hey, wouldn't you like to just vote for whomever you want? And Alaskans said yes. And so the way it works is that you show up on primary day and all of the candidates from all parties are there in front of you. So everyone gets a fair shot and anyone can vote for anyone. And then the final four candidates get through to the general election. And that's determined by rank choice voting. So you don't have any spoiler effect. You can have two Dems and rank them one, two and not vote for anyone else. And so this process, then it suits the public's interest because it's like, well, anyone has a say. As someone who's run myself in a rank

choice voting election, you have to listen to everyone because even if they're someone else's voter, they could still rank you two. So you're still like, yeah, let's talk about it. And the greatest thing is that when you come back for reelection two or four years later, you have to make your case to 51% of the population instead of just going to the 10% of the primary voters and trying to keep them happy, which, by the way, is the main thing that's messing us up. Just to make it crystal clear for anybody who's listening, what you're saying when you are mentioning that we don't have competitive listening, what you're saying when you are mentioning that

we don't have competitive elections, what that means is that a voting district is so deeply entrenched in one party or the other, often through gerrymandering or other means, that you know for sure that a Republican or Democrat is going to win that district. It's just a matter of which one. And in most cases, who wins the general election is decided in the primary. Who is the primary winner of the Republican Party or Democratic Party, whoever that is, they're probably very, very likely to win the general election. And only a small fraction of people show up to vote in primary elections. Many of those races are decided by tiny numbers of people. Oh, yeah. And anyone listening to this right now, Sharon, can relate because there's a 90% chance plus that they live someplace where

you know if it's going to be a Democrat or Republican who wins. And you know who wins almost all the time? The incumbent. because the incumbent has financial advantages and name ID advantages. I was just with someone talking about corporate PACs, which is companies donating money to candidates, and they have a rule that they only give to incumbents. Think about that for a second. If you get into office, then you have every advantage under the sun, which is why your reelection rate is so high. So people listening to this know because they're living it. I mean, like you don't have meaningful choice.

And so you wind up with this pseudo democracy. It's pretty much a fake democracy we're in right now. And so if you raise your hand and say, wait a minute, if 90% of the country doesn't actually have a meaningful choice, again, where does this lead? I mean, it leads no place good. Okay, so why do you think one of the solutions to this issue is a third party? Well, first, support for a third party has never been higher than it is right now. 62% of Americans say they want a third party.

Now, they mean different things by that, but that's still the highest it's ever been. 50% of Americans classify themselves as independents. And if you're an entrepreneur and you showed up at a marketplace and 62% of people wanted a new entrant and there were only two providers, you would say, well, I should start a third provider. But of course, the two providers make it very, very difficult to start a third provider. So let's say you agree with what I've said thus far, where it's like, okay, the incentives are messed up, and we should try and shift to better incentives. So the question is, can you do that from within the two-party system? And the answer is no, you cannot. Where this open primaries ranked choice voting ballot initiative I'm describing is on the ballot in Nevada this November. Democrats control the

Nevada government presently. So they looked at this and said, we hate it. We are against this. This is bad for us. So they've spent seven figures trying to fight a ballot initiative that objectively is good for the public. And the rationale they gave was that this will be too confusing for voters, even though they themselves, the Democratic Party of Nevada, they use ranked choice voting in their own internal processes. So they understand it, they know it works, but then they're like, oh, no, no, we can't have this statewide. So if you look at the political incentives, it's true for both parties. Whoever runs a particular area is not going to like a system that's more open, more dynamic, allows for new entrants. So if you wanted to change the incentives, you would need some kind of force outside of the two-party system. And so

you add that to the amazing number of Americans who want an alternative, that's how you wind up with something like the forward party being vital. Throughout American history, third parties have, number one, a terrible track record of winning. Number two, what they have been able to achieve is messing up the general election. And by messing up, I mean siphoning off enough votes so that one candidate or the other then ended up losing the election. And if you are a Democrat, chances are good that that is one of your concerns. That's something I'm hearing a lot, that a viable alternative to the Democrats means a Republican winning in future elections and also vice versa. This is not just a Democrat issue. So what is your answer to the fact that throughout history, third parties have just

siphoned votes off of the two more viable candidates? I'm going to tackle this in a couple of different ways. First, if you are actually concerned about the spoiler effect, you could just shift to rank choice voting, and then anyone can vote for whomever they want and problem solved. Now, if you actually present that to people, they don't actually say, oh, we should do that, because they don't want competition. That's really what's driving the objection. So the real answer is that everything you've just presented, which of course I've heard from other quarters, assumes that you're just looking at a presidential election and there's a third party the way people think of it with Ralph Nader or Ross Perot. So the truth of it is that there are over half a million locally elected officials around the country. We are recognized now in three or four states.

We're going to get to 15 states by the end of this year, 35 by the end of next year, and all 50 by the end of 2024. And our goal is to have thousands of locally elected officials running under the Forward Party in districts that right now often don't have any meaningful choice. 70% or so of races are currently uncontested because, again, everyone knows who's going to win. So it's like, hey, why would you bother running against me? I'm the incumbent. I'm chilling here. And so you're in a country where 88% of Americans think we're on the wrong track, in large part because there is no meaningful

competition in the vast majority of races in communities around the country. So that's where our focus is on building local and state chapters that can actually make a difference in people's lives. Another example I'm going to use is Evan McMullin's Senate race in November. So I want people to reflect on the fact pattern, which you've probably heard, but you have an incumbent Republican Senator, Mike Lee, who is Trump-endorsth co-collaborator in a state that Trump won by 21 points. So that's a done deal, right? Of course, he's going to win reelection. Not so fast. You have Evan McMullin, an independent who's running against him, and the Democrats decided not to run a candidate. So now you just have Evan versus Mike Lee. So the 39%

of Utahns who voted for Joe Biden are probably going to wind up not voting for Mike Lee. They're going to vote for Evan McMullin. So then the question is, will 12% of the 59% who voted for Trump vote for a moderate independent type like a Mitt Romney? And the answer to that is we'll find out, but he's competitive. And so you have a situation where a Democrat could not compete where an independent can, and you can just flip that around in very blue areas. Like I'm in New York City right now, Republican has no shot in this town. But if you were to have an independent run, where the Republicans say, okay, like I prefer this person to the Democratic establishment, and then there were some people in the middle who get behind them I prefer this person to the Democratic establishment.

And then there were some people in the middle who get behind them. So this is how you can introduce real change in real communities. Hmm. You view your focus at this moment in time is building the forward party movement from the bottom, from local races, from state-level races, and slowly working your way up to more national presidential races. Am I understanding that correctly? Our goal is to do as much good as we can in as many places as we can. And right now, the opportunities are local. Now, if you were to say to me, hey, Andrew, is there zero chance you're going to get involved in a national race? I mean, we'll have to see what the situation is. I recently did a poll on my Instagram stories asking people, which camp are you in? You want to see Trump run again? You want to see Biden run

again? You're undecided or you don't want to see either one of them run again. 84% of people were like, I don't want either of them. 9% of people were like, I'm still thinking about it. And clearly a very tiny percentage were excited about seeing either Trump or Biden running again. Now I know that my community perhaps self-selects in ways that maybe you can't extrapolate to the general population. They're actually pretty normal, but continue. But that just is a small, it's 110,000 people responding to that poll. The overwhelming majority is either like, eh, or absolutely not. I don't want either of these people again.

So, I mean, clearly the numbers don't lie. Even if you can't directly correlate my little non-scientific survey to- It's common sense. Like if you look at it and be like, hey, these are your two choices for president. You'd be like, you've got to be kidding me. I mean, this is it. This is the best we can do. Yeah. I mean, you know, not, not to flatter you. Like I would choose you for president. Thank you. It's very kind. I will not be running for president, but thank you. So here's the other thing that people are wondering about, though, is people have asked me many times, Sharon, do you think we should have more parties? And my position is I'd like to see around five viable political parties.

Me too. That's the number I present too, Sharon. Wow. You and I are on the same wavelength. I'd like to see about five viable political parties. And in order to make that happen, the alternative parties, the alternatives to the very dysfunctional Republicans and Democrats, everyone thinks they're dysfunctional, unless you're like the head, then of course, you're going to say, no, we're the best. Everyone thinks they're dysfunctional, at least on some level. They need compelling candidates, and they need money. Those are the two barriers. You know what I mean? Like, You can't beat the

fundraising machine at this point. I'm not saying you never can. I'm not saying don't work for it. None of those things. I'm just saying those are the two biggest barriers. And then, of course, as you mentioned, the way the electoral system is set up, in some ways, the winner-takes-all electoral college system also is a preventative to having viable, you know, a third, fourth, fifth political party. But speaking specifically to the funding piece, how do third parties raise enough money to beat the billions of dollars that are being spent by the Republicans and Democrats in this country? So I'm actually going to add something to your list. So you say we need funding.

Yes, we need candidates. Yes. But the third thing we need, which maybe even precedes one and two, is a fair playing field where if you were to show up and say, hey, I want to vote independent in particular race, it's harder for you to do so. There are all of these structural advantages to being from one of the major parties, which is why 95% of reasonable candidates show up and be like, well, what do I have to be to run competitively in this community? And so if you had a truly open playing field,

then you would see more parties emerge. And I agree with you that we should be going for five parties. Now, the distance right now is to try to go from two to three so that's going to be you know a challenge but if we have our way and you have open primaries and ranked choice voting then you'd probably end up with more parties emerging so the second piece is funding and you need a lot of money now you can be opportunistic you can pile in behind certain races and candidates so you're you're right that we need these things. We need other things too. We need media, which is one reason why you're so important because independent voices are, you know, what frankly, like it's just about the only truly independent media that's out there. I mean, you turn on the TV and you know, if you're getting the D or the R. So if you look at what we have to do is we have to build a parallel infrastructure to each of the major parties. That's not a small undertaking.

And it obviously requires somebody with some grit to be like, listen, I am up for building a parallel infrastructure. Let's do it. Most Americans would be like, never mind. It's not worth it. Well, everyone wants it, Sharon. Yeah. Like, you know, the 83 or 4% of your people were like, nope, like that. They all want it. And here's the thing, again, why this conversation is so exciting to me, is that I said on CNN the other day, it's like, millions of Americans want a third party, but you just keep being told can't have it can't have it. And a lot of this is because first, the media, frankly, is more self interested in keeping us in one camp or another, because that's where the bread is buttered. But if voters understood what it actually took for us to have an alternative,

they would do it. I'll give you one example. It's actually illegal to name your party, the independent party, in 20-something states because everyone signs up for it. And it makes the other parties look really lame in comparison, so you're not allowed to do it. Building this infrastructure is very, very doable. Like I've looked at the steps. Is it hard? Yes. Is it costly?

Yes. Will it take years? Yes. Is it also mission critical for the future of the country? Yes. And the other people that have gone into this independent politics space haven't stuck around a party bill the way they should have, in my opinion. Like you talked about Perot in 92, reform party gets 19% of the vote. And then the reform party dissolves, you know, a few years later because

he didn't stick around to build the thing up. I think he should have, like, I think independent figures should stick around. Competition is just good for democracy. Even if you don't want to vote for the reform party or the forward party or the Green Party, competition is better for voters. It's even more important, which is that, and I made this pitch to various people. Let's say they're democratically aligned. I'd be like, look, you should join us just to create competition for the Democratic Party so they have to actually deliver for you. Because a lot of people right now are like, hey, the Democrats aren't delivering because you know what? They don't think you have a choice. They're like, hey, you're stuck with us.

What are you going to do? Go to the Republicans? You're stuck with us. And so if you had more alternatives, then they would actually have to get stuff done for you. Whereas right now, they realize on some level, it's like, oh my gosh, if you do have a choice, you're going to leave me. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to make your other choice unacceptable. And I'm going to try and make it so that you essentially have no choice but to vote for me. You can't just be like, you know what, I'll just leak some unflattering things about the other guy. And then I don't have to actually do anything. That's what's happening right now. And so many of these races, all you have to do to win is make the other person look bad enough. You don't actually have to have any ideas of your own.

You don't actually have to accomplish anything. You just have to be not them. Yes, 100%. You're seeing like a real lack of responsiveness and accountability from a lot of our officials because they're not really afraid for their livelihoods in that way. That party is going to maintain power no matter what.

And that's not healthy. Okay, people want to know, what does the forward party stand for? If I see you on a ballot, what am I getting? What am I signing up for? What do you want to achieve? If you see forward party on the ballot, it's going to mean that that candidate is solutions-oriented, it's going to mean that that candidate is solutions oriented, wants to compromise and achieve consensus. And on most of the issues that you can name, they're going to be hewing, generally speaking, towards the majority point of view. So I'm Jenna Fisher, and I'm Angela Kinsey. We are best friends. And together we have the podcast Office Ladies, where we rewatched every single episode of The Office

with insane behind-the-scenes stories, hilarious guests, and lots of laughs. Guess who's sitting next to me? Steve! It is my girl

in the studio. Every Wednesday, we'll be sharing even more exclusive stories from The Office and our friendship with brand-new guests, and we'll be digging into our mail stories from the office and our friendship with brand new guests and we'll be digging into our mailbag to answer your questions and comments so join us for

brand new office ladies 6.0 episodes every wednesday plus on mondays we are taking a second drink you can revisit all the office ladies rewatch episodes every monday with new bonus tidbits before every episode. Well, we can't wait to see you there. Follow and listen to Office Ladies on the free Odyssey app and wherever you get your podcasts. If there is, frankly, you know, there are extreme ends of an issue, they're probably going to be in the middle because they're going to say, you know what, I may believe this. And I certainly represent this, this reality is like, I may believe certain things, but I also think that a deal that makes everyone a little bit unhappy sometimes is better than me standing on the side and leaving a problem unaddressed.

So if that sounds appealing to you, then the forward party is probably for you. One other thing that I'd love about the forward party is that it's going to look different in Arkansas than it does in California. We don't think that it's one size fits all. As long as you're willing to have a pluralistic grace and tolerance approach and say, look, I can disagree with you, but we're still on the same team. We're still Americans. We still have to live together. And I can live with a deal that some people on my side aren't going to love together. And I can live with a deal that some people on my side aren't going to love me for. That's the kind of spirit that Americans have been waiting for. It's interesting that you say that it's going to look different in different

states because the political landscape of different states is so varied. What is a majority point of view in Arkansas is different than what a majority point of view is in California. And so are you saying that the forward party's position is what does the majority of my local community stand for? And that's what I'm going to run on? Well, each candidate is going to have their own viewpoint. You're still a party of individuals. But the principles are that you will come to the bargaining table and say, I'm willing to try and work things out with people who might have a different point of view. So we're not saying, hey, all of our candidates are just going to poll test everything and say, well, here's what most people think. I mean, I obviously ran on policies that like, you know, at the time didn't pull quite well. But in many ways, it's more of like a governance approach and philosophy

than it is saying, like, you're going to be able to know what I stand for on every individual issue. People are also curious about will the forward party continue to position themselves with different policies that you have talked about in the past, like universal basic income? Is that going to be a position of the Forward Party? Universal basic income is something that I personally support, but there are many, many members of the Forward Party who have a different point of view, and I think that's great. And I think that's actually a perfect illustration of what the forward party is about. I started the forward party in large part because I don't believe that our current political system will deliver just about anything I ran on in real life. You know what I mean? And so I looked at that and said, okay, what's like an honest approach right now they're using that I'm for this, I'm against this as a way to pit us against each other while nothing actually gets done.

So members of the forward party will have their own perspective on universal basic income. And I'm looking forward to seeing now with people saying, hey, like, what's what's your approach? So do you feel like then the forward party will not have a basic party platform the way the Republicans and the Democrats do. You can go to democrats.com and they will tell you, here's what we believe. Will the forward party have that where we can go to a website and be like, here's what they believe, generally speaking, what candidates under this umbrella believe in. So from our perspective, we're starting a national tour in Houston, Texas on September 24th, culminating in our first ever our perspective, we're starting a national tour in Houston, Texas on September 24th, culminating in our first ever national convention that you're very much invited

to, Sharon, as is everyone who's listening, come to the first ever Forward Convention. And to the extent that we do want to have policy proposals that a broad majority of Americans are excited about, then we'll coalesce and put them together at the convention. I do think that even after that convention, though, there are going to be a lot of issues that we are not saying you have to be for this, we have to be for that. Because there are basics on which Americans can and should agree on that we can move forward on. And then other things that we should be able to look and say, hey, we have a diversity of opinions, and we're not going to prescribe that. Okay, I have a private group group and we have a book club.

These are, it's about 10, 11,000 people. And so I posited this question to them. I was like, what do you want to know? So I'm going to ask you a couple of rapid fire questions. Maybe you can answer. Okay. Are you ready? What makes your party different than the Democrats? Oh my gosh. We are open-minded, tolerant, and don't have any litmus tests, even on divisive social issues, as long as you're willing to work with us. The other thing is that we're not overrun by corporate interests. We're going to do what's right for the people. Right now, we're grassroots funded. Do you tend to stay that way? You know, I look forward to the day when companies are trying to throw big money at a sharing because it makes me control something.

But I mean... Yeah, that would be... Yeah, would you have Enron calling you and being like, I would like to donate 100 million, but different day. Those would be good times. All right, next question. What are your thoughts about a flat tax? I like the simplicity of it.

I can't stand how much time and energy we waste on administering our taxes. At this point, it's just a top of kludgy provision. It's something that intellectually I'm attracted to. I think any transition, though, would have massive winners and losers. You'd have probably the usual food fight over it, but I'm intellectually attracted to it. Yeah. Should you need to get a degree to be able to pay the government the appropriate amount of money? They already know how much you owe. Why can't you?

Why can't they just send you a bill like I know in other countries? I cannot tell you. You know, we have very few policies of the forward party. One of them is that your taxes get filed for you, which, by the way, other countries do. The whole thing is ridiculous. And you know who's kept us from being able to do that? Intuit, because they think they can make more money on TurboTax by saying you have to do it yourselves.

It's that kind of nonsense that's making us all freaking crazy. Nobody thinks the tax system is fair and works in the United States. I don't think anybody does. We can all point to somebody where we're like, why does Jeff Bezos only pay income taxes on $80,000? And meanwhile, I own a small business and I'm paying 40%. How does that just because I don't have enough offshore profit sectors? I owned a small business and I ran it for years and I was paying because I'm in New York City. I was paying close to 50%. And I went to my accountant and was like, am I just the dumbest dude alive? Like, what's going on? And he's like, no, no, this is the way it is if you like own and operate a small business. And I was like, wow.

All right, next question. Is Liz Cheney going to join your party? Oh, wow. So first, let me say that one of the things I'm frustrated by right now is that we're not uplifting the folks like Liz Cheney, who voted to impeach Trump and have really stood on principle. And so I unfortunately think Liz is going to lose her primary, and I would welcome her with open arms into the forward party. There are people like her who are looking at joining us, and I think we'd be a natural home for someone like Liz, honestly. Okay, the next question. It's a longstanding joke in my community that I love to hate Andrew Jackson. People want to know how does it feel to share

first name with my favorite worst president of all time? It doesn't feel great. Andrew Jackson was objectively terrible. How he got on one of our most popular currency notes is beyond me. I will say growing up with the name Andrew Yang, I was pleased to have a name that people could, like Andrew, no problems. We know what that is. We can pronounce it. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Next question. Which party are you going to dilute? To the extent that the forward party is going to energize and change things, it's really, again, 50% say they're independents. At any poll, you say 26% or more are politically disengaged. You know, like, I think we're going to activate this exhausted, silent majority that right now

is fed up with both parties. A lot of the people I'm talking to that express that, they don't seem to me to be avid Democrats or Republicans. So I really think that it's a whole new thing. And I do think that thinking about us diluting really at one, it presumes that everyone's a Democrat or Republican, which I just don't think is the case. But the other thing is it assumes that like our votes somehow belong to one party or another, which is only the presumption because they've created this artificial forcing function. That's interesting that our votes don't actually belong to anybody. Your vote belongs to you. You don't owe any party your vote. They should earn it. And they know they're not earning it. So they're like, you know what, I'm going to make it so you have no choice. That's really the approach. know what, I'm going to make it so you have no choice. That's really the approach. Okay, next question here. Can you give an example of a compromise on polarized political viewpoints? Can you give an example of a compromise on a hot button issue on something

that Americans are widely divergent on? Sure. Immigration reform. And I say this because Marco Rubio proposed immigration reform in a bipartisan way a number of years ago. And then if you don't remember that, don't worry about it, because he walked it back a week later after a bunch of Republicans jumped down his throat and said, Marco, what are you doing? What are you doing? We're going to take a beating from our base on this. But the fact is, if you look at immigration reform, the majority of Americans agree that we should be enforcing our border and doing a better job actually administering our regulations as they're written, but that we should also have a way for people to be able to immigrate if they do fall under various provisions. And so this is what Marco proposed. He got smacked down by the

Republican Party because they thought it was much better for them just to be able to yell and scream about it. So that's an example of something that in a more functional system would have happened. The next question is, what will be the forward party's position on abortion? So let me say that I personally am for women's reproductive rights all the way. But I think the Ford Party is going to wind up, most of our people and candidates are going to land somewhere in the consensus view, which is that there should be a right to an abortion up to a certain point in a woman's pregnancy. And then it's a question of like what week or month we're talking about.

But the majority consensus view is somewhere in that timeframe of, you know, approximately like up to the second trimester if my memory serves. So I think that's where most candidates are going to fall. Why are you for guaranteed income for people who do not work? So again, this is not a forward party thing. This is an Andrea thing. But my wife has been at home with one of our boys who's autistic for a number of years. And I know she's working harder than I do. And there are different people in different circumstances that are doing things that you can say is work, is not work. I'm someone who loves when people are able to join organizations, volunteer, do things that are positive and fruitful in their community.

I think one of the greatest things we're losing in this country is that more and more people are dropping out. And it's harder and harder for people to plug in productively, particularly now with the aftermath of COVID and everything else. So I'm all for getting people into those environments. I'd be all for various subsidies that help people find work or volunteer work or nonprofit orgs or whatever it is under the sun. But I do think that having economic resources in people's hands would actually give them more access to those opportunities and that we should be trying to find ways to get people in. How should America amend its constitution, if at all?

I mean, I'm for a whole series of constitutional amendments, which I might not get into all of them right now, but I will single out a couple. I think that there should be term limits for Supreme Court justices. I think that you should have it so that one gets appointed every two years and that every president essentially gets two and make it more stable and less wacky. And would that mean that person who's been on longest is out? And you're just like, well, if you had an 18 year time frame, I mean, it might take a little bit to calibrate. But as time went on, you'd have someone be like, well, you know, like I'm at year 18. And then they get replaced by someone else. Now, what how you approach the justices who are currently

in I mean, most of them have been there for a while. So you could probably figure out like a, you know, relative tenure. One thing I would be while, so you could probably figure out like a relative tenure. One thing I would be for also is trying to get money out of politics, overturn Citizens United. That does take a constitutional amendment. I'm actually part of a group that, believe it or not, is trying to overturn Citizens United via constitutional amendment. What are your thoughts about a constitutional amendment for term limits for members of Congress? Okay, here we go. Again, Ford Party is not for a huge laundry list, but we are for term limits for members of Congress, as are 74% of Americans, because you should not be going to D.C. to have a

job forever. You should go to serve the people's interests and get the heck out. It would reduce corruption. It would improve incentives. And it would also reduce the gerontocracy, where the average senator right now is 64. The average member of Congress is 58 or 59. But those are just the averages. You look at the seniority, Nancy Pelosi is 81, Steny Hoyer is 80. Chuck Schumer is a relatively spry, I want to say like 72, 73. So if we had reasonable term limits,

you'd have a Congress that was more energized and representative. Three quarters of Americans want it, but getting either party to sign on, that's why you need the forward party. The forward party is 100% for term limits for all members of Congress. What do you think is a fair term limit? Okay, here we go. This is the balance where you don't want to make it too fast because then they don't get established and develop relationships, but you don't want to make it super long either. So in our view, an appropriate term would be something like either 12 or 18 years in each house.

So that way, if you were like the greatest person ever from that state, like you could work 24 years in Washington and that'd be fine. But then you'd also have people like coming in and coming out in a reasonable timeframe. Now, one of the problems Sharon right now is that they go in and it's like the best job they think they'll ever have. So you have to make it easier for them to get out. You need kind of a runway out for them all. So one of the things that drives me nuts is like, you know, like over half of members of Congress are millionaires now. And their salary is 174k, which is a lot, but you know, it's not that much. And so you're like, how the heck are you all becoming millionaires? If you

weren't millionaires in the first place, there's just a lot of institutional corruption that goes through that place. And I think term limits would help. So 12 years in each house seems appropriate. It is interesting about the millionaire effect. And to the average American, $174,000, you're like, that's a lot of money. That's a really good living. They do have to maintain two residences. They have to have somewhere to live in very expensive DC. And they do have to have somewhere to live when they're in their home district. And they presumably would need to support a family or thereabouts. But yes, given how much of that money needs to be outlaid, it is interesting how many of them manage to accrue large sums of money.

And look, I've been around the political scene a fair amount. And I got to say, Sharon, I see how it happens. Like you get in there and just everyone wants to be your friend and do your favors and this and that. And you're like, oh, and they're like plenty of like relatively legal ways to make it happen. So there's like hard corruption and soft corruption. D.C. is certainly like neck deep in both of them, honestly. People want to know about the transparency of your funding

sources. How will you manage to remain transparent? Well, we don't have a choice, to be honest with you. So right now, we are a PAC and everything a PAC does is filed. So you can check it out. We're an open book. and the reason we're a pack is that you actually have to be certified by the fbc as a political party after satisfying a bunch of tests including have a national convention which we obviously haven't done yet so we're a pack until otherwise acted on by the fbc and so anyone can just look at our filings and say okay here's who's funding the forward party and hopefully it's you at home you can look at your own name and say hey i gave 10 bucks and there it is people do do want to know, that's another question that I have. If somebody is liking what they're hearing, they want to donate,

do you just go to forwardparty.com? Yeah, just go to forwardparty.com. You don't even need to donate. You just sign up. That'd be dope. But if you do want to give us 10 bucks, that would be even better. I got to be honest. And you can see your $10 as a vote for an alternative to this messed up two-party system that's grinding us up. So please do go to forwardparty.com, give exactly $11.20. I made that up. There's no significance. Give whatever you want. But please do make this cause yours because it's our path out of this mess. And as far as I can tell, it might be our best and only path out of this mess. And as far as I can tell, it might be our best and only path out of this mess.

I also like to make up weird non-round numbers for things. I'm like, it could cost $11.63. You know, like I, for whatever reason, I'm always like, it's never $10. It does seem more authoritative, you know? It's like, if I ask you for 20 bucks, it's like, well, you know, you just pull that number out. But if I ask you for like 1983,

it's like, oh, you know, you pull that number out. But if I ask you for like 1983, it's like, yeah, you actually calculated. That's right. It seems like you have calculated a specific need. And what it means is I need 1983 for each one of you. Send us exactly $17. $17.46 is what I need to eliminate the corruption in Washington, D.C. $17.46. That's what I do. Yes. Done and done.

Okay. Is there something else that you really want people who are listening to know? Okay. If you're listening to Sharon, then you are savvy. You're engaged. You're trying to figure out how we can actually fix these problems and our messed up system of government. What we need you to do is talk sense to the people around you who might not be as into it and just be like, hey, have you ever noticed that 90% of these districts are very blue or very red? I was like, hey, have you noticed that both parties actually collude to keep any minor party off the ballot? Whatever the heck your favorite idea or talking point is,

we just need you to help spread the word. And whether they get behind the forward party or some other way to improve things, that would be incredible. It's one reason, again, I was so excited to talk to you, Sharon, is that you have this intense following and tribe. And what we really need is we need people to help lead and expand the tribe of folks who are trying to fix the system of ours. And this comes from my entrepreneurial background. So when I tried to start something, I'd say, hey, I'm going to do this. And you know what most people say? That's a terrible idea. That's what most people say. But then when you do something, then they're like, oh, well, maybe I should do the same thing or help you out. So I'm actually going to put an addendum is like, just do something.

Stop doing nothing and start doing something. And then, and then just like share with your friends and be like, hey, I did this thing. Cause that really is the way you inspire others to take action too. I've one last question. People want to know. They sent me a question and said that you are known for the cool music that you listen to. And they want to know who you are currently listening to on repeat. Wow.

So this could be a sign of my advancing age. But I've just been listening to a lot of 80s music because it puts me in a happy mood. Like Richard Marks. Who are we talking about here? So I'm going to call out right now the band I've been playing. It's a band. I call it a band. It's a bit of a stretch.

Hall & Oates. Hall & Oates. If you listen to Hall & Oates, I'm pretty confident you're going to feel better about your day. And if you don't know who they are, just stick them on Spotify and then know, Spotify and then be like, Oh, like, you know, Yang's right. This is pretty pleasant. It's upbeat. I'm sorry if that wasn't cool enough, everyone, but you know, just telling the truth. They're so out there in again. I hope so. Yes. They're back. All right. If people want to find out more about you, then go to andrewyang.com, forwardparty.com. I assume you're

all over the social medias that they can follow you on the Twitters. I'm all over because I'm trying to help fix things for your kids and mine. andrewyang.com, I've got a blog, a mailing list, social media, and a lot of it will just end up directing you to Forward Party. Well, this was a pleasure. I hope we will have the chance to chat again in the future. Best of luck with your convention. Sharon, you are very much invited not just as a guest, but to speak at the first ever party convention. You can say whatever you want, anything under the sun, because I know it's going to be genius and magic and important. So but really, this has been even better than I thought. And

I was really looking forward to this convo. Oh, thanks. Thanks for joining me. I really appreciate it. Thank you so much for listening to the Sharon says so podcast. I am truly grateful for you. And I'm wondering if you could do me a quick favor. Would you be willing to follow or subscribe to this podcast? Or maybe leave me a rating or review, or if you're feeling extra generous, would you share this episode on your Instagram stories or with a friend? All of those things help podcasters out so much. This podcast was written and researched by Sharon McMahon and Heather Jackson. It was produced by Heather Jackson, edited and mixed by our audio producer Jenny Snyder, and hosted by me, Sharon McMahon.

I'll see you next time. Hey, Torontonians. Recycling is more than a routine. It's a vital responsibility. By recycling properly, you help conserve resources, reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, and protect the environment. Toronto's Blue Bin Recycling Program ensures the majority of the right items are recovered and transformed into new products. Thank you.