Why US Politics Is Broken — and How To Fix It | Andrew Yang | TED

譯者: Sue Lu 審譯者: Helen Chang

It's great to be here.

很開心能夠來到這裡。

I'm Andrew Yang,

我是楊安澤，

I'm going to be talking about why American politics are not working

我將用十分鐘談談 為何美國政治行不通，

and then how to fix them, all within ten minutes.

及其解決之道。

What do you all think?

你們覺得如何？

Yes.

好耶。

I'm speaking here in Canada,

我現在加拿大演講，

and a friend in Canada described living here,

一個加拿大的朋友說，住在這裡

or he compared it to living in the apartment above a meth lab.

宛如住在冰毒實驗室樓上的公寓。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Where he's getting very nervous about what's happening below him,

他非常緊張樓下發生的事情， （註：樓下指南邊的美國）

and it's starting to concern the entire neighborhood.

而整個社區似乎也開始擔憂了。

I'm going to suggest that what's going wrong with American politics

我認為美國政治問題的根源，

is born of poor and perverse incentives that are related to a design flaw.

是因設計缺陷導致的不良激勵機制。

Now, this design flaw can happily be addressed

欣慰的是，我們可以解決該缺陷，

at only two percent of the cost

只用花費相當於 兩大黨投入本屆總統選舉

of how much the two major parties are going to pour

into this presidential cycle.

競選資金的 2%。

This is, to me, the highest leverage opportunity in the world

我認為這是全世界 最具槓桿效應的機會，

to start solving some of our biggest problems.

來開始解決一些最嚴重的問題。

Now some of you may remember me as the “math guy” from four years ago.

在座有些人可能記得我， 四年前的那個「數學家」。

So there will be some math in this presentation.

因此，本演講也會涉及數學運算。

But I went around the US making the case

當時我在美國四處宣傳：

that AI was going to come and change everything

人工智慧將改變一切，

and that we needed to evolve our economy,

我們需要發展經濟，

adopting measures like universal basic income, to prepare for the future.

採取全民基本收入等措施， 為未來做好準備。

I founded an organization, Humanity Forward,

我創立了「人類前進」這組織，

that is still working on these ideas today,

至今仍在研究推進這些。

but I came to realize that nothing profound and positive

但我意識到，美國政府 無法產出深遠積極的影響，

will come out of the American government

unless we realign the incentives within the system.

除非重新調整系統內的激勵機制。

So what do I mean by these incentives?

那麼，這些激勵機制是什麼？

What is the approval rating of US Congress as we're here together?

大家對美國國會的支持率是多少？

And feel free to shout out a number even if you are not American.

請隨意報個數字， 不是美國人也可以參與。

I'm anchoring you low so you know it's low.

友情提示，比率不高。

(Audience laughing and talking)

（聽眾笑聲和說話聲）

I'm hearing 30,

我聽到 30，

I'm hearing 20.

我聽到 20，

It is lower still, it is 15 percent.

實際上更低，15％。

It's been declining a bit, it's been in the 20s.

它一直在降，之前是 20% 左右，

Now it's around 15 percent.

現在約為 15%。

What is the re-election rate for incumbent members

現任眾議院議員

of the House of Representatives?

連任率是多少？

Anchoring you high.

友情提示，往高猜。

You know it's high.

It's higher still, it's 94 percent.

比你猜的更高，94 ％。

That’s a higher win rate than the Michael Jordan-era Chicago Bulls,

這高過麥可·喬丹時代 芝加哥公牛隊，

The Kevin Durant-era Golden State Warriors.

或凱文·杜蘭特時代 金州勇士隊的勝率。

So how can these numbers be so disparate?

為何這些數字如此兩極分化？

It turns out that 90 percent of the congressional districts

因為美國 90％ 的國會選區

in the United States are drawn to be either blue or red.

非藍即紅。

And the Americans here know what I'm talking about.

在座的美國人知道我在說什麼。

You know which party is going to represent you

投票前選民就已知道 哪個政黨將代表他們。

before a single vote is cast.

So what people imagine

因此，人們以為

is that our leaders have to make 51 percent of us happy

領導者要讓 51% 的民眾 滿意才能連任。

in order to stay in office.

The truth is that only about 10 to 12 percent of voters

事實是，只有 10％ 至 12％ 的選民

participate in these primaries,

參加這些初選，

and these voters tend to include some of the most ideological or extreme

而他們往往包括這些政黨中 最具意識形態或極端的基礎盤。

of the bases of these parties.

I have met many base voters, and let me just say they have ...

我遇到過許多基礎選民， 這樣說吧，他們有...

let's call them specific points of view.

有很特定的觀點。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

So how can you lose your job in this system

你怎麼可能在這個體系中失業，

if you essentially cannot lose the general election?

如果實質上你根本不會輸掉大選？

You can expire.

你可以任期屆滿，

That's one possibility.

這是一種失業的可能性。

But the other is that you get on the wrong side of these base voters.

另一種可能是你站在了 這些基礎選民對立面。

And there were 10 Republican House members

有 10 名共和黨眾議院議員

who voted to impeach Donald Trump after January 6.

在 1 月 6 日後，投票彈劾川普。

How many of them made it back through their primaries?

他們中有幾位通過初選呢？

Two.

兩位。

In a system where you have a 94 percent incumbent reelect rate,

在一個連任率為 94% 的体系中，

only two out of 10 Republicans made it back to the primaries

10 位共和黨人中 只有兩位通過了初選，

if they ran afoul of their base.

就因为冒犯了自己的基礎盤。

So the fiction that most Americans have been told is, look,

大多數美國人被誤導，以為

our leaders have to make 51 percent of us happy.

領導者要讓 51% 的人满意才能連任。

The reality is that they have to stay on the good side

事實是，他們只須拉攏

of approximately 10 percent of their party's base voters.

他們黨内约 10% 的基礎選民。

So this tends to bring people a bit to the sides,

這往往傾向於使人們向兩邊靠；

it changes their incentives.

這改變了激勵的機制；

This is one reason why America's political parties feel

這也是美國政黨像是

like they're not listening to a lot of the public.

並不怎麼聽取公眾意見的原因之一。

So you have the party primaries

那麼，先是黨內初選將我們推向極端，

that are stretching us toward the extremes.

Then you have our media organizations

然後媒體將我們分隔到不同陣營。

that are separating us into tribes and teams.

You know which team's media you're watching at any moment.

你隨時都知道看的是哪派的媒體，

And then you have social media pouring gasoline on the whole thing.

另外還有社交媒體在火上加油。

And if you had to put numbers on this, you can imagine the power of these forces.

若用數字來衡量， 不難想像這些勢力的強大，

And they're getting stronger, not weaker.

而且力量與日俱增。

What do you all think?

你們怎麼想呢？

This is a reasonable summary?

這總結合理嗎？

So it's gotten to the point now where a US senator said this.

如今事已至此，有個美國議員如是說：

He said, "A problem is now worth more to us unaddressed than addressed."

「不解決問題比解決問題 對我們更有利。」

What happens if some brave legislators lean across the aisle

一些勇敢的立法者跨了界，

and try to compromise and find a solution to a big, hairy problem?

試圖折中解決棘手的問題，結果呢？

They worked with the enemy, they're ideologically impure,

他們被說成與敵共謀，意識形態不純；

their base turns on them, and their job security goes down.

他們遭基礎盤反對，工作也朝不保夕。

What happens if they let the problem linger and fester?

但如果他們任由問題持續惡化呢？

Nothing.

他們反而沒事。

They can raise money, they can get votes, they can get you mad.

他們可以籌資、獲得選票、令你發狂，

And they have a 94 percent re-election rate.

然後仍保持 94% 的連任率。

So you can put any major problem in this bucket.

主要問題儘歸於此。

And this is why it feels like we're not making meaningful progress.

正因如此，我們停滯不前。

You could put immigration in there,

移民問題歸於此，

you could put climate change in there,

氣候變化也是，

you could put AI in there, you could put poverty in there.

人工智慧和貧窮問題亦然。

So have I managed to depress you all in about five minutes?

我在剛剛的這五分鐘裏 讓你感到沮喪嗎？

Believe it or not, I'm actually now going to get us all the way out of this

相信我，我將於下面五分鐘 帶你走出低谷。

in the next five.

There is a real solution to this situation,

這種情況有個真正的解決方案，

and I want to give credit to Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter,

歸功於凱瑟琳·蓋爾和邁克爾·波特

who co-wrote the book "The Politics Industry"

合著《當政治成為一種產業》一書， 提出這個解决方案。

who make this case.

So Alaska in 2020 changed its primary process

2020 年，阿拉斯加改變初選程序，

to make it so that candidates run in one primary from any party,

規定各黨派所有候選人參加同一初選，

and then the winner is chosen via ranked choice voting.

然後通過普選的 「排序選擇投票」選出最終獲勝者。

This is an Alaskan ballot, and you can choose up to four candidates,

這是阿拉斯加普選的選票， 你最多可以選四名候選人，

first, second, third, fourth choice.

第一、第二、第三、第四選擇。

I’m going to take a couple of minutes just to review for the non-Americans,

我想先給這裏的非美國人

and maybe some Americans here, how the primary process ordinarily works.

以及部分美國人 普及一下美國初選程序。

So the way it works is that you have people running in each party.

首先，每個黨派都會有人參選。

You have nominees who are chosen,

先在黨內提名參選人，

and then the nominees run against each other.

這些參選人再相互競爭。

And the party that is dominant in that district wins.

由佔優勢的政黨勝出。

And as we saw, in 90 percent of the districts,

如前所示，在 90％ 的選區中，

you know which party is going to win that general election.

哪個政黨普選會勝出一清二楚。

In this new system in Alaska,

而在阿拉斯加的新體系，

that was changed in 2020,

2020 年改革的初選體系中，

now you have the top four candidates of any party

産生的前四名候選人 則有可能來自任何黨派，

get through to the general election,

他们進入普選，

and then they are chosen via ranked choice voting,

然後其中一人通過 「排序選擇投票」勝出。

which we're going to go into an illustration of right now.

我們現在將用圖文舉例說明。

So this change was made in 2020,

這項改革是在 2020 年制定的，

it applied in 2022.

於 2022 投入了運作。

How many of you have heard of Sarah Palin?

有多少人聽說過莎拉·裴琳？

Somehow worldwide.

不知何故，全世界都認識她。

How many of you have heard of Mary Peltola?

你們聽說過瑪麗·佩爾托拉吗？

Mary Peltola is the relatively anonymous state legislator

她是位相對無名的州議員，

who defeated Sarah Palin for a congressional seat in 2022.

在 2022 年擊敗了 莎拉·裴琳獲得國會席位。

Now in a conventional system,

在傳統的黨內初選體系中，

Sarah Palin probably wins the Republican primary

莎拉·裴琳很可能贏得共和黨初選，

and then probably wins the general election

然後再贏普選，

because Alaska is a red-leaning state.

因為阿拉斯加是偏向紅色的州。

But in this new system, via ranked choice voting,

但是在「排序選擇投票」的新體系中，

Mary Peltola ends up emerging as the winner in the second round,

瑪麗·佩爾托拉最終在第二輪勝出，

in part because a critical mass of Alaskan voters put her second.

因為大量阿拉斯加選民 將她排在了第二。

And in this same cycle, believe it or not,

信不信由你，在這個競選周期中，

this is a very important race because if Sarah Palin had won,

這場比賽非常重要， 因為如果莎拉·裴琳贏了，

she'd be in DC right now.

她現在就會在華盛頓特區。

There would be a TV camera presented to her just about every day

幾乎每天都會有台電視攝像機對著她：

and asking her, "Say something crazy, Sarah, say something crazy."

「說點瘋狂的話吧，莎拉。」

And then she would say, "Glad to. That's kind of why I'm here."

她會說：「好啊， 這就是我在這裡的原因。」

She would say something crazy,

她會說些瘋話，

and then that would be presented to the other side and say,

然後媒體會拿這去問對立派：

"Did you see the crazy thing Sarah said?

「看到莎拉說的瘋話了嗎？

What do you think?"

你怎麼看？」

And that's what would pass for news.

這就是當下的「新聞」，

And we'd all be three IQ points dumber and sadder.

讓我們智商損失 3 點， 變得更愚蠢可悲。

(Laughter and applause)

（笑聲和掌聲）

So this outcome was averted by this new system.

幸好新的選舉體系避免了這種後果。

But of even more importance was that in the same cycle,

更重要的是，在同一選舉周期中，

Senator Lisa Murkowski was up for re-election.

參議員麗莎·默科夫斯基 也正准備重新競選。

And Senator Lisa Murkowski has the distinction

她的特殊之處在於

of being the only Republican senator who voted to impeach Donald Trump,

她是當年唯一投票彈劾 唐納·川普的共和黨參議員。

who was up for re-election.

After her impeachment vote,

在她投了彈劾票之後，

her favorability rating was measured at six percent among Alaskan Republicans.

她在阿拉斯加共和黨中 支持度僅為 6％，

They did not like that impeachment vote.

因為同僚很反感她投了彈劾票。

But there is no party primary in Alaska anymore,

但阿拉斯加已經沒有黨內初選了，

so she went through essentially to the general,

所以她順利進入普選，

and she ended up emerging as the winner

並且最終成為贏家，

because she was again the second choice

因為普選中她是多數選民的第二選擇。

of a critical number of voters.

So this change in Alaska had profound effects within two years,

阿拉斯加初選體系改革 在兩年內産生了深遠的影響。

and it cost six million dollars to adopt this reform campaign.

這項改革花費了 600 萬美元，

Six million dollars.

僅僅 600 萬美元。

You know how much the two parties are going to spend

可知兩大黨將在此次 總統競選中花多少錢？

this presidential cycle?

10 billion dollars.

100 億美元。

I'm going to suggest that this six million dollars

我敢說，這 600 萬美元

is the highest impact investment any of us has ever seen.

是有史以來最具影響力的投資，

And it's evergreen.

而且它持續影響。

It turns out that 25 states have ballot initiative measures

其實，25 個州都有選舉倡議措施，

where you could change the primaries into this new,

可以將初選體系改為這種無黨派初選

nonpartisan primary

and ranked choice voting combination

和「排序選擇投票 」相結合的新體系，

that ends up realigning the incentives

重新調整激勵機制， 使其脫離極端，回歸民衆。

away from the extremes and toward the public.

Nevada voted to approve the Alaska system in 2022.

內華達州在 2022 年投票 通過了阿拉斯加選舉體系。

That campaign cost a little bit more,

這次改革運動的成本稍高一些，

it cost 22 million dollars.

花費了 2200 萬美元。

But the advertisement that I thought put it over the top

我認為其宣傳片的高光，

was a military veteran looking at the camera and saying,

是一位退伍軍人看著鏡頭說：

"I went overseas to defend our country for years.

「多年來我在海外保家衛國，

I came back and as an independent, I can't vote in our primaries.

因為獨立人士的身分， 返鄉後卻不能在初選中投票。

And I don't think that's right."

我認為這是不對的。」

53 percent of Nevadans agreed with that veteran,

53％ 的內華達人 同意退伍軍人的觀點，

even though both major parties came out against it.

儘管兩個主要政黨都表示反對。

And in November, there are five more states that are considering

11 月份，還有 5 個州 考慮實施類似的改革。

a version of these reforms.

I want you all to imagine six, eight, 10 US senators

請大家設想一下， 如果有 6、8 或 10 位參議員

who are all of a sudden freed of their party primary

突然擺脫了黨內初選的束縛；

and a similar number of members of Congress.

同樣，如果一些國會議員也能自由參選，

Do you think that would meaningfully rationalize American politics

你覺得這會幫助美國政治 變得更合理、更完善嗎？

and change them for the better?

(Applause)

（掌聲）

That is the vision that is on the table right now.

這就是目前的願景。

And the cost of this, if you were to adopt these reforms

而推行這項改革的成本是

and try them in 10 states, not all of them would pass.

假設在 10 個州推行， 不是所有的州都會通過，

Maybe half of them would pass,

也許一半的州會通過。

but the total cost would be about 200 million dollars,

但總成本大約僅為 2 億美元，

which is only two percent of the 10 billion dollars

只占大選資金 100 億美元的 2%。

that are going to be spent turning Americans against each other,

這場大選在接下來幾個月裏， 將令美國人相互對抗、仇恨和懼怕。

making us hate and fear each other over the next number of months.

How much should be spent realigning our incentives

應該花多少錢調整激勵機制，

so that government actually works?

從而使政府真正發揮作用？

So it's a political year.

今年是大選年，

I know there's going to be a lot of energy in the air,

我知道整個氛圍將很躁動。

but if you feel like you are forced to join one team or the other,

如果你感覺正被迫加入某個團隊，

I hope you'll consider joining team "overhaul the incentives."

我希望你考慮加入 「改革激勵機制」團隊。

Because if enough of us join that team,

因為如果我們有足夠的人加入，

then maybe America will start to feel a little bit more like one team again,

或許美國就能再次像個團結的陣營，

and we can get to work solving the real problems of this era

我們一起著手解決 這個時代真正的問題，

and build a future we can all be excited about.

共建一個我們為之興奮的未來。

Thank you all.

謝謝大家。

(Cheers and applause)

（歡呼和掌聲）