This whole article is more of a an argument for why we need Score Voting. “Government is dysfunctional, so we can’t trust it to renew expiring laws.” OK, wow, you have bigger problems than Andrew Yang if you believe that. You need to fix your democracy. Go donate your salary to the Center for Election Science.
I think you’re wrong on KPI’s. Even if the authors of legislation have them in mind, explicitly stating them and measuring success by them helps surface the idiocy of bluster-based nonsense like mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Even in the original context of software engineering, people routinely make this argument: we don’t need KPI’s because we can just trust our PM’s to have sensible empirically testable goalposts in mind when they create a user story (“feature request/description”). Unfortunately, even very smart people often envision nebulously “useful” functions whose specific business value has not be clearly articulated. And with no established success criteria, there’s no hope for a team to objectively determine whether any of their expensive hard fought efforts were actually successful.
I think your overarching thesis that he vastly oversimplifies complex problems is accurate. Unfortunately our Very Serious Candidate Warren is living in the 1500’s on issues like UBI and alternative voting methods. So having Yang out there pushing the envelope on policy is exciting to me. Buttigieg may be the pragmatic fusion of the two. We shall see.