Below is a report I wrote comparing Democratic candidates in the 2021 NYC mayoral election. I am keeping it here completely unmodified from how it appeared shortly before election day. Eventually (after the new mayor serves and gets a real track record) it will be worthwhile to systematically go over this and see what I got right or wrong.
As noted in this writeup, there is an EA working for Eric Adams, although I was not aware of this fact until very late in the race and I hardly knew any details. Upon further dialogue it's become apparent to me that there is substantive intra-EA disagreement on Adams' merits. I largely stand by what I wrote here but reserve some uncertainty that I significantly underrated Adams.
The Democratic primaries for the 2021 NYC mayoral election use ranked ballots with up to 5 choices. For the best expected impact on total welfare, I recommend filling out your ballot as follows:
The most important thing here is for Garcia to be ranked above the other major candidates. Donations and activism are best directed in support of Garcia.
Stringer appears a bit better than Yang for running New York City, but Yang has more experimental value in terms of trying new ideas and dynamizing political culture across the country.
See the scoring model here.
This is an evaluation of candidates for the 2021 NYC mayoral election.
I judge them against the criteria in my Policy Platform, which sets the best policies for maximizing long-run global welfare. But here I modify the issue weights from that analysis to account for the unique priorities of the NYC mayoralty. Some issues are just irrelevant here so I set them to zero and exclude them entirely. The updated issue weights are: air pollution 8.2, animal welfare 13.0, criminal justice 9.2, education policy 4.3, government 7.5, ground/water pollution 7.8, guns 1.5, healthcare 4.6, housing 10.8This may seem kind of low, but according to @MarketUrbanism, "I no longer think a pro-growth mayor really matters" because of the difficulty of progress and the only really important thing is to avoid electing an anti-growth mayor". And in general, the mayor doesn't have as much power over zoning as the city council does., infrastructure 6.3, poverty relief 4.7, and taxation 3.9. Fitness for office is still weighted at 40% the sum of all policy issues.
I score all the notable Democratic candidates: Eric Adams, Shaun Donovan, Kathryn Garcia, Ray McGuire, Dianne Morales, Scott Stringer, Maya Wiley and Andrew Yang. By default, I give them the average Democratic scores for all issues, then modify them whenever I have more specific information.
Green text denotes things which are good and orange text denotes things which are bad. I also include (in regular text) some things which I'm not scoring as substantially good or bad but are still highly notable.
Adams' environmental plan includes reduced city procurement of meat, and he wants to "significantly speed up our conversion to an entirely electric bus fleet". He has a variety of ideas for local community programs which would have dubious impact, but offers only sparse details on overall utility infrastructure. I give him 1.6 points.
Donovan's climate platform is detailed and comprehensive. It has a large amount of racial equity baggage. He mentions geothermal alongside solar and wind as a renewable energy source, supports offshore wind, and emphasizes the efficiency of public transit. I give him 1.6 points.
Garcia's climate platform notably includes electricity transmission projects for bringing clean energy from upstate, exploration of a "first of its kind" carbon trading system for reducing building emissions, bus electrification, food-to-biogas for power generation, geothermal energy, offshore wind, solar subsidies for all property owners, and planting of 1 million trees. She makes no pledge to close 'peaker' fossil fuel plants (unlike Donovan and Stringer), only saying she will reduce reliance. I give her 2.1 points.
McGuire's website doesn't say anything substantial about reducing air pollution. It is apparently not one of his top four priorities. I give him 1.2 points.
Morales' environmental plan includes offshore wind, full electrification of public transport (but unfortunately doesn't mention school buses in particular), hire-local requirements for climate projects, and generally an unhealthy emphasis on bureaucratic and community initiatives as opposed to concrete actions. Earlier in the campaign, Morales did not have an environmental plan, suggesting that it was apparently not one of her top four priorities. I give her 1.1 points.
Stringer has a reasonably detailed and comprehensive climate plan. I give him 1.8 points.
Wiley's climate plan includes expanded geothermal energy, offshore wind, "electrification of vehicles starting with school buses and ambulances". She wants the city to become carbon negative, but only mentions natural carbon sinks, suggesting an implicit disdain for technological carbon removal and storage. I give her 1.4 points.
Yang's climate plan includes specific plans to complete electricity transmission projects for bringing clean energy from upstate, specific plans for offshore wind, permitting process reform for rooftop solar installation, and a goal to "electrify the City’s vehicle fleet by 2035". His environmental plan in his 2020 presidential campaign was also good. I give him 1.95 points.
Adams promotes plant-based diets and wants to reduce city procurement of meat. I give him 2.3 points.
Wiley has been endorsed by Voters for Animal Rights, although it should be noted that some of their criteria are dubious, and an organization like this may be expected to have a bias towards progressive candidates (like Wiley). I give her 2.3 points.
I give other candidates 1.2 points as is typical for Democrats.
Adams' safety plan includes a pledge to be "laser-focused on violent crime—especially guns", extra hiring of African-American cops, and "making it easier for good cops to identify bad cops". He is a former cop, which could be a good or bad thing in different ways.
New Democracy says, "Adams has pushed to reform NYPD's racial issues from within for most of his career, which is one of the biggest positives any candidate has. Unfortunately, he has often resorted to bizarre 'tough on crime' language such as 'stop the sag' and encouraging guns at church," and gives him a C. But in reality this language probably isn't such a big deal, especially within the context of African-American culture where it does not carry racist overtones.
I give Adams 1.5 points.
Donovan's criminal justice platform includes decriminalization of all aspects of sex work, and will "consent to the appointment of a federal monitor to oversee the police department’s practices with respect to public protests".
New Democracy says, "Donovan has released a detailed slew of policies focusing on criminal justice reform. His plan focuses on combating guns and serious crime, prioritizing community-driven approaches, rebuilding an accountable NYPD, and reinvesting criminal justice savings," and gives him an A. But we should be cautious about whether "community-driven approaches" are actually a good idea, depending on the specifics.
I give Donovan 2.2 points.
Garcia's police reform platform includes greater gender and racial diversity in the police force, expanding implicit bias training (which is normally bad) but "to focus on a proven, research-based method of reducing bias: engaging in positive interactions with out-group members", more general training requirements including de-escalation training, and raising the recruitment age from 21 to 25. She wants to "implement alternatives to incarceration for the appropriate situations, focusing on evidence-based solutions to rehabilitation, deterrence, and reducing recidivism".
New Democracy says, "Garcia has a criminal justice platform that deserves praise. She hopes to focus on internal NYPD reform through measures such as increasing the recruitment age and enforcing more clear and consistent consequences. Still, her platform lacks the detail of other candidates." New Democracy gives her a B. Apparently they mistakenly believe it would be a good idea to raise the recruitment age.
I give her 1 point.
McGuire's platform on criminal justice includes ending qualified immunity for police officers. He opposes decriminalization of sex work.
New Democracy says, "McGuire has a strong plan focusing on accountability through new NYPD chains of command, involving city government to focus on more serious crime, and creating a police force that acts more proportionately. Still, these plans are not as comprehensive as those of others." They give him a B.
I give him 1.5 points.
Morales wants to defund the police. She supports strict accountability for police officers and calls out the Police Benevolent Association as part of the problem, although her proposed system of officer oversight might be too extreme. She wants to end police presence in schools, end cash bail, and end the war on drugs. Overall, Morales has some naive far-left views on criminal justice, but she also does a very good job of identifying serious problems that need to be fixed. Whether she will do a good job or not depends on whether she can be successful at achieving some genuine reforms as opposed to having her tenure devolve into fighting over the size of the NYPD budget.
New Democracy says, "Morales has espoused many left progressive talking points on criminal justice reform including explicitly promoting "defunding the police." Unfortunately she provides sparse detail on what this would actually look like. Her policies like decriminalizing sex work are uniquely exciting." They give her a C.
I give her 1.3 points.
Stringer's criminal justice plan looks pretty good. New Democracy says, "Stringer has advocated for positive policies such as abolishing mandatory surcharges, finding ways to end the criminalization of poverty, and forgiving outstanding court debt. Still, his platform lacks the detail and comprehensiveness of other top candidates." They give him a B.
I give him 1.6 points.
Wiley doesn't seem to have a criminal justice plan, only ideas for gun violence prevention which say little about policing, except that she wants to reduce the NYPD budget by $1 billion. While working in the DeBlasio administration, she softened a report on NYPD taser use, presumably under political pressure from City Hall.
New Democracy says, "Wiley has made criminal justice a center-point of her campaign, focusing on targeting gun violence, launching evidence-based therapeutic support programs, and more, but for a candidate of her experience, her policy proposals are surprisingly devoid of detail." They give her a B. Note that New Democracy did this evaluation before ProPublica published their report on her time at CCRB (which I cite above).
I give her 0.9 points.
Yang has proposed a police misconduct division of the DOJ. He supports training all officers as BJJ purple belts and more typical liberal measures to reduce police misconduct. He is in talks with a consulting firm whose CEO was once a consultant for the largest NYPD union. He also wants to legalize marijuana and is open to decriminalizing psychedelic mushrooms. His criminal justice plan looks decent. He wants to decriminalize sex work.
New Democracy says, "Yang has written a moderate amount to push for a "safe and fair city" such as pushing for use of data in policing, combating illegal guns, and changing drug laws. Unfortunately, his platform lacks much detail." They give him a C. I would also note that inexperience and lack of political connections in NYC may make it particularly hard for Yang to pursue police reform.
I give him 1.3 points.
Adams supports meditation and mindfulness for students and greatly increased job training in high school. He doesn't push for more college subsidies and doesn't want to cut standardized testing. I give him 0 points.
Donovan's education platform emphasizes continued bureaucratic efforts to establish progressive racial equity in the school system, but that's about what you'd expect from any NYC Democrat. He wants to increase bilingual education, which has unclear valueBilingual education certainly doesn't provide wonder benefits like making students smarter, and it's dubious whether it does anything for multicultural tolerance. Additionally, AI translation is increasingly eliminating the rationale for learning multiple languages. At the same time, childhood education has a comparative advantage in teaching new languages, and it's not like many other subjects that students learn are very useful either.. He also wants to increase library funding and broaden the uses of libraries. He wants to "go big" on apprenticeships and supports free community college. Donovan attended a private school, and doesn't say anything about charter schools or vouchers, so he probably isn't as bad as other Democrats on the subject of school choice. I give him -1.5 points.
Garcia's education platform includes cutting education administration, phonics instruction, advanced magnet schools for top students, and an end to middle school screening. She envisions reform of school safety and discipline to make them less hostile, which could be a good or a bad initiative, considering the evidence on 'restorative justice' elimination of suspensions and the need for greater resources for school discipline. I give her -0.5 points.
McGuire has a sane, commonsense liberal approach to education policy, wants to focus on early childhood issues, and wants to "focus on in-demand skills, entrepreneurship, and the trades, and expand private sector partnerships that have a proven track record" as opposed to emphasizing college. I give him 1.1 points.
Morales wants to increase support for teachers and reduce classroom sizes. She also wants to increase training for teachers, which could be just a poor use of money (if it's optional) or genuinely pernicious (if it's mandatory training). She opposes standardized testing and pledges to end the SHSAT. She wants to change curricula in ways that could be interpreted as an emphasis on fostering important cognitive and emotional skills or could be interpreted as a degradation of education into woke doctrine. She supports "open enrollment" which I assume means choice in attendance of different public schools. I give her -2.1 points.
Stringer wants to "dismantle" the NYC DOE. I give Stringer -1.5 points.
Wiley wants to "redistribute money spent on testing and test grading to fully fund arts programming. She wants to "retrain safety agents in restorative justice practices". She wants to "supplement classroom learning with work experience by creating a year-round, universal Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP)". She wants to "fully invest in the NYC Department of Education’s definition of Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Education with an expansion of the Office of Equity and Access", which might be wasteful or damaging woke bureaucracy, but I don't know the details. Overall, I give her -1.9 points.
Yang has emphasized vocational education instead of universal college and opposes active shooter drills. However, he wants to replace standardized tests with holistic college admissions. He also wants to de-emphasize testing in admissions for elite NYC public high schools. I give him -0.5 points.
Adams supported a pay raise for state senators when he was a state senator. At the same time, he opposed reforms to increase transparency in Albany; it's unclear if this was a good idea (at the national level at least, we have too much congressional transparency). He has criticized issues surrounding ranked choice voting, which is harmful to the cause, but I don't think he's ever opposed the voting system itself. I give him 2.5 points.
Wiley wants to appoint a 'New Deal czar' who will report to her to cut through red tape on projects. I give her 2.6 points.
Yang supports ranked choice voting and has a track record of doing so in his 2020 presidential campaign. I give him 2.6 points.
I give other candidates the Democratic average (2.2 points).
Donovan wants to redouble efforts to achieve zero waste by 2030, which seems like an unimportant and extremely costly diversion from more serious environmental priorities. He doesn't mention lead pollution in his platform, but he does talk a lot about racial environmental disparities, so he probably cares about it anyway. I give him 0.5 points.
Garcia wants a major regulatory and bureaucratic effort at waste reduction. She doesn't say anything about lead or other toxins, but she briefly worked on the lead paint problem as the interim chair and chief executive officer of the New York City Housing Authority. She was the Commissioner of the New York City Sanitation Department. I give her 1.8 points.
McGuire wants to get funding to eliminate lead paint from NYCHA apartments. I give him 2 points.
Stringer wants to "eliminate childhood lead exposure by targeting buildings already linked to cases of lead exposure". I give him 2 points.
Wiley plans to "tackle lead poisoning". I give her 1.8 points.
I give other candidates the Democratic average (1.5 points).
Adams wants to strengthen handgun laws, which is the right area to emphasize although I don't know if it is politically feasible. I give him 1.1 points.
Garcia wants to increase the gun buyback rate from $200 to $2,000; gun buyback programs seem about average in effectiveness compared to other gun policies but such a high rate may lead to unintended consequences (won't it be easy to exploit it by importing lots of guns and turning them in for a profit?) in addition to being quite expensive for the city. I give her 0.9 points.
I give other candidates the Democratic average (1 point).
Note: while the campaigns and media focus heavily on dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, I pay little attention to that, as the problem will probably be mostly solved by the time of the next mayoral term, which starts in January 2022. By that time, basically everyone probably will have had a good opportunity to get vaccinated (it will have been eight months since New York expanded vaccine eligibility to everyone aged 16 or older). There may be a significant 2021-2022 winter wave among unvaccinated people, but a new mayor won't be able to get results until many weeks into the term anyway. Additionally, it's not clear that any candidates have uniquely impactful ideas for distributing vaccines.
Adams' healthcare plan looks pretty typical for a Democrat, but is rather sparse. I give him 0.7 points.
Garcia's healthcare plan includes "strengthening the pipeline of nursing and healthcare staff to close workforce shortages, including leveraging the CUNY system to recruit more New Yorkers to train for medical system jobs". I give her 1.1 points.
Wiley has a plan for reducing maternal mortality.
I give her 1 point.Yang notably wants to amend the New York City charter to make ending racial disparities in health a DOHMH primary mandate, will "require racial equity competency as part of teaching and learning at all H+H hospitals" and will make it "a requirement for nonprofit organizations seeking City funding to deliver healthcare services". He wants to decriminalize syringe possession and expand access to buprenorphine. I give him 1.2 points.
I give other candidates the Democratic average (0.8 points).
New Democracy gives Adams a B on housing, but due to irregularities in his record (like xenophobic comments, and protecting horse stables) they almost gave him a C. Meanwhile, @MarketUrbanism cites his poor track record to rank him even lower than Wiley. In one informed person's view, "Eric Adams is likely to be pro-development but not necessarily focused on it, and he's also going to be cross-pressured by his base, which is longtime New Yorkers". One trustworthy NYC acquaintance of mine rates him 7/10. Adams also wants to create an agrarian economy in NYC, which is a poor use of urban space. Overall, I give him -0.8 points.
New Democracy gives Donovan a B for housing plans. Donovan also has excellent experience related to housing. He served as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for five years. Previously, he served as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. Before that, he did even more housing work in New York City and the Clinton administration. One informed NYC acquaintance of mine rates Donovan 9/10. Overall, I give him 2.4 points.
New Democracy gives Garcia's housing plans an A and calls her "easily the best candidate on housing". One trustworthy NYC acquaintance of mine rates her 8.5/10. She wants to force cops to live in New York City, which (leaving aside its pros and cons from a policing point of view) will exacerbate the housing shortage. Overall, I give her 2.7 points.
New Democracy gives McGuire a B on housing plans. One informed New Yorker says "[McGuire's] housing policy is much more vague than Donovan's but I have little doubt he'll pursue a similar Bloomberg-esque deregulation policy that's YIMBY". One informed NYC acquaintance of mine rates him 7.5/10. Overall, I give him 1.5 points.
New Democracy gives Morales an F on housing plans. One trustworthy NYC acquaintance of mine rates her 3/10. I give her -2.6 points.
New Democracy gives Stringer a C on housing plans. One trustworthy NYC acquaintance of mine rates him 5.5/10. Overall, I give him 0 points.
New Democracy gave Wiley a D on housing plans. More recently, she said that if she could tear down one building in New York, she would pick 200 Amsterdam Avenue. One informed NYC acquaintance of mine rates her 2.5/10. Overall, I give her -2.1 points.
New Democracy gives Yang's housing plan a B. One informed NYC acquaintance of mine rates him 8.5/10. But "who knows if he'll actually manage to get anything done--NYC politics is complicated and hard, and he's a newbie" (the same could be said for McGuire). Overall, I give him 1.7 points.
New Democracy gives Adams' transit plan a B. Adams' favorite book about New York City is The Power Broker (see this article). I give him -0.2 points.
New Democracy gives Donovan's transit plan an A. He has experience pushing infrastructure projects, especially disaster preparedness in New York City. I give him 2 points.
New Democracy gives Garcia's transit plan a B. She was the Commissioner of the New York City Sanitation Department. On the topic of disaster preparation, she recognizes that "in some neighborhoods (Edgemere, Lower Manhattan) we don’t necessarily need more “planning” - we just need to fully fund and execute resiliency strategies we already have in place". I give her 2 points.
New Democracy gives McGuire's transit plan a D. I give him -1.1 points.
New Democracy gives Morales' transit plan a B. One trustworthy NYC acquaintance of mine has a lower but less confident opinion of her transportation plan. I give her 1 point.
New Democracy gives Stringer's transit plan an A. Stringer has "the best record on transit and understanding its role in NYC". One trustworthy NYC acquaintance of mine has a lower but less confident opinion of his transportation plan. I give him 1.9 points.
New Democracy gives Wiley's transit plan a D. I give her -1.1 points.
New Democracy gives Yang's transit plan an A. I give him 1.5 points.
Yang has been a longtime proponent of cash relief. He wants to make it easier to access SNAP and WIC benefits, although he also repeats the trope of food deserts and offers favors to local food businesses. I give him 1.2 points.
I give other candidates the Democratic average (1 point).
Adams doesn't have any detailed tax plans. I give him 0 points.
Garcia wants to "help support the struggling taxi industry" (i.e., handouts to monopoly rent-seekers). I give her -0.7 points.
Yang wants to end the Madison Square Garden tax break. He appears to be the only Democratic candidate to have said this. I give him 1.1 points.
I give all other candidates the Democratic average (0 points).
Adams was born in 1960, so he's about average age (suggesting moderate cognitive decline) and attended average ranked colleges (suggesting average academic caliber).
Eric Adams has moderate political experience. At the start of the next mayoral term, he will have served as Borough President of Brooklyn for 8 years and state senator for 7 years; note that the Borough President does not have a lot of responsibility compared to a mayor. He has twice acted improperly with regard to political fundraising, according to the city Department of Investigations. He was also criticized for holding indoor fundraisers during COVID-19, but he actually stayed within official guidelines. He has lied about his residency, claiming to live in Brooklyn when he actually lives in New Jersey (separated from his constituents). There are irregularities with his property disclosures which suggest that he may have committed tax evasion.
Adams has a long and dubious track record of shady politics and connections, and he would be worryingly powerful. David Schleicher says, "If you think New York politics is not enough about ideas, or is too transactional as it is, or no one cares for the broader city interest, you are really going to not be happy with an Adams administration... [he] is going to be able to achieve pretty much what [he wants], and everyone else is going to be terrified of him".
Adams seems to have a strong personality and does not seem particularly policy- or data-driven. Looking across his comments and career, the adjective "Trumpy" comes to mind for his off-the-cuff political interactions.
Adams falsely claimed that an alliance between the Garcia and Yang campaign was voter suppression. Upon being asked to clarify that he would not claim, like Trump, that Garcia/Yang were stealing the election, Adams said "I assure voters that no one is going to steal the election from me". This could be very charitably interpreted as him saying even if Garcia or Yang wins, he wouldn't consider it a stolen election, but it really seems like a deflection of the question with an implicit statement that Garcia and Yang are trying to steal the election.
Despite these problems, one EA in NYC works for Adams, which reflects positively on his administration.
Overall, I give Adams -1.6 points for fitness for office.
Donovan is average age, suggesting average cognitive decline. He was admitted to Harvard University, a very highly ranked school, but this doesn't mean very much since he came from a private preparatory high school.
Donovan has had a long political career. He served as OMB Director for 3 years, HUD secretary for 5 years, NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development Commissioner for 5 years. Before that he worked on housing development in the Clinton administration, the private sector, and the nonprofit sector. Note that OMB Director is a very powerful and important job. However he lacks the executive experience of Adams and Stringer. During his long career there has not been evidence that he is corrupt.
Donovan's fact check average is 3.5 from 2 checks. This is such a short track record as to be almost meaningless. It very weakly suggests he is better than the average Democrat (3.3). However, his estimate of housing prices in Brooklyn was absurdly low especially considering housing being his job.
Overall, I give Donovan 1.7 points for fitness for office.
Garcia was born in 1970, so she's a bit below average age (suggesting less cognitive decline) and attended UW-Madison, a moderately highly ranked school (suggesting above average academic caliber).
Garcia has had a minor political career which is nonetheless highly relevant to the job of NYC Mayor: she was Commissioner of an NYC department for 6 years and COO of another NYC department for 2 years. During this time there has been no evidence that she is corrupt, although considering the short duration and relatively low profile of these jobs it is not strong evidence.
An NYU historian says, "having been in a brief meeting with her and, more importantly, having talked with folks who work in city agencies and observed the challenges of city admin from a pretty close remove… [Garcia] will bring executive/admin competence to the Mayors office which has been lacking at the top".
Overall, I give Garcia 1.5 points for fitness for office.
McGuire is a little older than average, suggesting possible cognitive decline. He grew up in poverty without a father, was admitted to Harvard, entered finance in the 1980s and became a high-ranking Citigroup executive - a truly impressive success story. He has worked in finance for nearly four decades.
Since McGuire has had no political career (except for a minor role in Obama's presidential campaign), he is still lacking in relevant experience, and could be corrupt for all we know.
Overall, I give McGuire 0.4 points for fitness for office.
Morales is a bit younger than average, suggesting less cognitive decline. She was admitted to Stony Brook University, a somewhat highly ranked school, but this means little since she attended an elite high school. Morales has done some entrepreneurship and leadership in the nonprofit sector and New York City Department of Education. She has not had a political career, so she is lacking in relevant experience and could be prone to corruption for all we know.
Morales' campaign for mayorship has been rocked by angry demands from campaign staff. I'm skeptical that she really has mistreated them, perhaps the problem is simply that her (very left wing) staff is prone to agitate. But even if the latter is true, we must still judge her by the fact that she surrounds herself with the kind of staff who behave in this manner, something which bodes ill for her administration as mayor.
Overall, I give Morales -1.8 points for fitness for office.
Stringer is about average age and was admitted to an average college. If elected, by the time of his swearing in he will have served as New York City Comptroller for 8 years, Borough President of Manhattan for 8 years, and state assembly member for 13 years. Throughout this impressive political career, he has not shown evidence of corruption. He is accused of groping and kissing a woman against her will in 2001; the accusation has no independent verification but doesn't seem implausible in any way. I give him 1.7 points for fitness for office.
Wiley was admitted to highly selective universities and is relatively young, but she is relatively inexperienced. In the De Blasio administration, she was friendly but circumspect, and may have allowed City Hall political influence to overshadow her job.
Wiley spoke in defense of Garcia and Yang's campaign alliance, stating that it was not voter suppression.
I give her 1 point for fitness for office.
Yang was born in 1976, making him relatively young and not vulnerable to much cognitive decline. He attended Brown University, which is a very highly ranked school, in spite of being an Asian-American who may face racial discrimination in admissions, and in spite of being the child of immigrants, suggesting top academic caliber.
Yang did some private sector work. He was rather successful and became a millionaire. Two women have accused him of discrimination in pay and hiring, but these allegations are not independently substantiated and seem likely to be the result of misunderstanding.
Yang launched the nonprofit Venture For America, which seems to have had a mediocre track record.
Yang has had no political career (except for a tiny role in the Obama administration), so he is inexperienced and could be prone to corruption for all we know.
Yang's fact check average is 3.0 from 7 checks (mainly from his presidential campaign). This very weakly suggests that he is less truthful than the average Democrat (3.3) and perhaps comparable to the average Republican. Meanwhile, a review I did of some of Yang's tweets suggested that they had a truth content of 90%, similar to tweets by Biden (89%); Biden in turn is less truthful than the majority of Democrats (according to PolitiFact). Of course, Yang's tweets were far more truthful than those of Trump (42%).
Yang's 2020 presidential campaign suggested that he was not technically sound on policy, with a number of dubious policy proposals and the idea that basic income was needed to protect people from automation. That said, he did have some uniquely good ideas. Yang essentially created his own archetype of politician, the internet populist. However, he has appeared more conventional in his mayoral campaign. He hasn't voted in previous NYC elections, suggesting that he's opportunistic rather than politically ideological, and hence more prone to corruption and lobbying. He has sometimes appeared culturally distant from ordinary New Yorkers, but this isn't a real problem. He has a cheerful demeanor, for whatever that's worth. He says he would hire Garcia for his administration.
Overall, I give Yang 0.3 points for fitness for office.
I calculate the merit score as the weighted average of their scores on individual topics. It shows how good or bad they would be as mayor.
| Candidate | Merit score |
| Kathryn Garcia | 1.48 |
| Shaun Donovan | 1.46 |
| Scott Stringer | 1.29 |
| Andrew Yang | 1.11 |
| Ray McGuire | 0.94 |
| Maya Wiley | 0.78 |
| Eric Adams | 0.32 |
| Dianne Morales | -0.13 |
The voting system is described here. Despite being called 'ranked choice voting', it is more precisely known as Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV). IRV is highly resistant to tactical voting, so it's typically fine to just rank the candidates on your ballot by their merit scores. Note that while Garcia and Donovan should take the first two spots, they are so close that they are practically tied, but on a purely rhetorical level, telling people that you are ranking Garcia first sends the strongest message for people to take notice of her as the best major candidate.
Eric Neyman explains that one kind of tactical voting can work in this election. Since the ballot is restricted to 5 names, you should include the names of all but one major candidate on your ballot, to maximize your chance of making a difference. (See PredictIt for candidates' chances of winning.) My scoring suggests that Wiley is better than Adams, so she should get the fifth spot instead of McGuire.
Eric Neyman also suggests taking into account the experimental value of electing Andrew Yang, not just for testing policies that may help NYC, but for testing policies that may be copied across the country. This is outside the bounds of my ordinary scoring, and makes sense. Note that Yang not only has some unusual policy ideas but represents a wholly different brand of politician which may be 'experimented' with. Therefore, one could reasonably rank Yang above Stringer. Regardless, Yang should still be lower than Garcia, who is more likely to inspire the rest of the country by implementing policies that are definitely beneficial.
The results are sensitive to the choice of weights. You can experiment with sensitivity analysis by making a copy of the Excel spreadsheet.