"Why and Why Not" podcast host Brad Fallon welcomes guest Dr. Stephen Medvic, Author of Gerrymandering: The Politics of Redistricting in the United States, for an in-depth look at gerrymandering.
This funny-sounding word gets scorn from both major political parties, yet we have more gerrymandered maps than ever. So how'd we get here and what could we do about it?
Gerrymandering (Not as fun as it is to say) - Why and Why Not
A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.
Twenty‑five years after September 11th, the burden of that day continues to affect us in ways that are difficult to express. It was a moment of profound loss, but also one that revealed both the vulnerability and resilience of our national fabric. The memories remain vivid for many of us: where we were, what we felt, and how the world appeared to change in an instant. Even now, a quarter century later, the impact of that morning continues to shape how we understand our country, our responsibilities, and our relationships with one another.
To help us all reflect on that day, I invited four contributors to the Fulcrum to share reflections not to revisit the tragedy, but to commemorate the ways it has persisted in our consciousness twenty-five years later.
The meaning of 9/11 has evolved alongside America itself. The grief, unity, questions, and enduring tensions all reflect the ongoing effort to build a healthier democracy. These reflections remind us that citizenship is not a static role; it is a daily practice shaped by the moments that challenge us most. My hope is that this collection encourages us to examine honestly where we are today and to recommit to the mission of strengthening the bonds that unite us.
David L. Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Beyond the initial shock of the attacks and the inevitable changes to our collective psyche, I have several sharp memories of the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. First was a deeply personal call with my sister. She was witnessing the posters of missing people as she walked the streets of Lower Manhattan, while I sat in a pizza parlor in California. The dissonance was palpable. A few days earlier, her phone call alerted me to the attack, as she checked in to say she was OK. I remember hearing stories in the days that followed from friends whose friends had miraculously missed being in the Twin Towers. Another friend missed the Boston flight. As a result, the attack felt deeply personal. Many friends also grieved those who had been lost. Upon reflection, it may have been my disappointment with Congress that our political unity was so short-lived, which contributed to my entry into good governance organizations in 2003. I'm still dedicated to that cause, 25 years later.
Debilyn Molineaux is a storyteller, collaborator & connector. For 20 years, she led cross-partisan organizations. She currently holds several roles, including serving as a catalyst for JEDIFutures.org and as the host of the podcast Terrified Nation. She previously co-founded BridgeAlliance, Living Room Conversations, and the National Week of Conversation.
On September 11, 2001, I was a young father and seminarian, still figuring out what it meant to lead and serve. The day started like any other—dropping off my child, heading into work—until everything changed. News spread faster than understanding. Words failed. In those first hours, I searched for something to hold onto—some meaning, some comfort.
But in the days that followed, what stood out wasn’t only fear or sorrow. I remember neighbors praying, strangers helping, communities leaning on one another. In the midst of tragedy, ordinary people showed remarkable care.
Twenty-five years later, remembering alone isn’t enough. This anniversary asks what we’ve done with our grief, what we’ve learned, and who we’ve become. We are summoned to a way of being I call weaving: drawing together memory, pain, difference, and hope to create a more compassionate common life. Our healing—and our democracy—depend on remembering honestly, empathizing deeply, and working together. That is the living memorial we owe the future.
Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, and scholar-practitioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, my daughter’s neighborhood playgroup gathered at our home. Four four-year-olds were picking apples on a perfect late-summer day.
I watched the little girls playing as the television blared the same images over and over again: planes exploding into New York City’s Twin Towers, the aftermath of the crash into the Pentagon.
These contrasting scenes: innocent children playing in an orchard under a clear blue sky, and the terrible evil unfurling as the towers collapsed and the smoking skies darkened…an unfathomable juxtaposition.
How could both exist in the same country at the same time?
Now, twenty-five years later, those little girls grown, I still wonder. How can so many believe in our nation, and so many disparage it?
That very long day unraveled into that very long week. The plight of Flight 93 unfolded, the story of its brave passengers instigating a takedown, their intentional sacrifice.
Leading the charge to seize control of the plane, Todd Beamer’s words still thrill and inspire me: “Let’s roll!”
Yes. Let’s do.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."
In New York on 9/11, I was working as a journalist when the first tower was hit, and the city I knew so well became unrecognizable in an instant. I didn’t go home for days. I stayed in the newsroom, trying to make sense of what we were witnessing as we documented the grief unfolding around us.
When I finally returned home, I remember stopping in place. House after house on my block had raised an American flag — a quiet, collective gesture that felt like the neighborhood was exhaling together after holding its breath for days. The first thing I did was put up my own flag.
In that moment, the flag became more than a symbol of the nation; it became a reminder of the responsibilities we share as citizens. It wasn’t an act of patriotism as much as a gesture of mourning and connection — a way to say we are still here, we belong to one another, and that even in the face of unimaginable loss, we can choose to rebuild the civic fabric that holds us together.
The memory of 9/11 continues to shape how many Americans understand citizenship today: not just as a legal status, but as a commitment to community, service, and showing up for one another in moments of crisis.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network
An immigrant's perspective on why America's election debate over security vs. access is a false choice — and how USPS mail ballot rules fit in.
I came to the United States from India in 1982. In Indian elections, I watched officials check voter identity and mark a voter’s finger with indelible ink. Party representatives observed the process. The system was imperfect, as every large democracy is, but it sent a simple message: casting one vote is a serious civic act, and the process should make that clear.
When I later became an American citizen and cast my first ballot, the experience felt very different. A poll worker found my name on a list and handed me a ballot. In my precinct, there was no photo identification check. I was surprised—not because I expected voting to be difficult, but because I expected a system as consequential as an election to have clear, visible safeguards.
America’s election debate has become trapped in a false choice. One side hears “security” and fears exclusion. The other hears “access” and fears weak controls. A durable democracy needs both. Eligible voters should be able to vote without needless burdens. At the same time, ballots should be handled through rules that are transparent, verifiable, and understandable before Election Day.
That is why the current debate over mail ballots and the U.S. Postal Service matters. USPS has proposed standards for federal-election mail ballots that would require official-election-mail markings, compatible envelope designs, and unique Intelligent Mail barcodes. The proposal would also create a process through which states supply information about voters who are to receive mail ballots. A unique barcode can help election offices and voters follow a ballot through the mail stream. It cannot decide who is eligible to vote, and it should not be presented as a substitute for state election administration. But tracking is a useful form of accountability.
The proposal is not settled law. It has faced court challenges, and courts have temporarily blocked or allowed parts of the government’s effort to proceed while litigation continues. That legal uncertainty is itself a reason for care. Election rules should not be imposed hurriedly, or changed so close to an election that administrators and voters cannot understand them.
The sound principle is simpler than the partisan argument. Build verification at the front end, and build access into the same system. If a state requires identification, it should provide a free, practical way to obtain the required document. It should offer reasonable alternatives for voters who do not drive, have disabilities, live far from an issuing office, or lack a stable address. It should give the public clear instructions well before voting begins. And it should allow voters to correct a problem with a mail ballot when state law permits.
This is not merely a matter of optics. Trust is an economic asset. Families saving for retirement, small-business owners making investments, and workers planning their futures all depend on institutions that can resolve disputes lawfully and peacefully. A close election will always produce disagreement. But disagreement is less damaging when the public can see the rules, understand the chain of custody, and know that every eligible voter had a real opportunity to participate.
Americans do not need to agree on every rule of election administration. States have different histories and different systems. We do need to agree that the goals are legitimate: one eligible voter, one ballot; no eligible voter turned away by an avoidable barrier; and election procedures that are stable enough to earn public confidence.
The USPS proposal can add value if it is kept in that proper role. Better ballot tracking and clearer mail standards can help make the delivery process more visible. But Congress, states, election officials, postal workers, and courts should insist on safeguards for privacy, costs, timing, and voter access. Security without access fails democracy. Access without credible procedures weakens trust. The country needs both.
As the United States marks its 250th year, this should be an area for practical cooperation. Election security is not a partisan trophy. It is maintenance on a democratic system that every American relies on.
Meda Parameswara Reddy, Ph.D. is Director of the Reddy Center for Critical and Integrated Thinking. A former R&D executive holding 30 U.S. patents, he focuses on the analysis of human behavior, public health, and global affairs, drawing on an interdisciplinary background. He published in multiple RealClear platforms, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., The Humanist, AFRO American, South Asia Monitor (on editorial board, and host of a show), and others.
mpreddy54@yahoo.com, mpreddyinsights.com, https://lnkd.in/gn2zQJbs
A federal court sided with LAHSA, but LA nonprofits are still fronting millions to deliver government-funded homeless and DV services. Time to fix this
Politics nerds have many ideas about how to strengthen American democracy; however, few directly address silent elections. For example, ranked-choice voting does nothing to encourage more candidates to run if there are not enough. Term limits increase turnover, but even newcomers can frequently run uncontested in general elections if they have won competitive primaries.
Fortunately, the cause isn’t hopeless. For one, tightening campaign finance laws would put potential challengers on more even footing with corporate-backed politicians, encouraging more candidates to run. Independent redistricting would also help. The Cook Political Report, a poll aggregator, considers only 69 of America’s 435 House districts competitive. Fair redistricting means more competitive districts and therefore more contested elections.
However, independent redistricting can only help so much. In Massachusetts, where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans 3-1, it is impossible to draw many competitive districts. It is therefore unsurprising that Massachusetts has the highest rate of uncontested congressional elections despite receiving an A grade for district fairness from the Princeton Gerrymandering Project.
Fortunately, uncontested elections are not inevitable. Direct interventions that focus on the problem can reduce their occurrence. One often-overlooked proposal is open primaries. With open primaries, a single primary occurs for all parties from which two or more of the highest vote-getters—regardless of party affiliation—advance to the general election. Open primaries ensure that the important electoral decisions occur in general elections—where they receive more turnout and attention—instead of primaries.
Alaska implemented open primaries in 2022 and enjoyed its most competitive election season in a decade: only 12% of state legislature elections were uncontested. California has adopted the system as well, and in 2024, only one California state assembly election was uncontested, and no state senate seats were, suggesting that open primaries can create electoral competition.
California has more ideas to offer than just open primaries. One is district size. California’s state assembly has only 80 seats, creating constituencies 2.5x the size of any other state house district in America. And with one million people per district, California’s state senators represent more constituents than US Representatives. More people means more potential candidates.
California’s competitive elections are buoyed by California’s generous benefits for elected officials. State legislators in California are the highest paid in the country and receive a strong benefits package. California’s system is not perfect. Many barriers to entry, especially for working-class individuals, still exist. However, it’s enough to consistently produce contested elections for the most important offices.
Another potentially impactful reform is multi-member districts, where multiple elected officials represent one district. Studies show that multi-member districts can greatly reduce the rate of uncontested elections. Competitive elections require fewer total candidates with multi-member districts because a district of 30k people needs only four candidates to competitively elect three legislators (four candidates for three spots), whereas three districts of 10k people need six candidates total to competitively elect one legislator each (two candidates for one seat in each district). Multi-member districts also help new candidates by letting them challenge multiple incumbents simultaneously and get elected by beating just one.
Multi-member districts are already used in parts of the United States, including for state house elections in Arizona, South Dakota, and Washington, all of which had relatively few silent elections in 2024, when they last elected their state houses.
Institutional reforms can help increase the number of candidates who run, but some barriers are innate to the political process, or at least to the political culture. Political office is often a demanding, underappreciated job where politicians struggle to make the change they want. What’s more, aspiring politicians must invest massive amounts of time into a campaign before they can start doing the job—and often, they lose.
Tahirah Amatul-Wadud knows what it’s like to lose an election better than most. In 2018, Amatul-Wadud challenged incumbent Richard Neal for the Democratic nomination in Massachusetts’ 1st congressional district and lost. A lawyer and long-time district resident, she was motivated to run because she felt the country was moving in the wrong direction and that Neal was letting it happen.
Outspent 21-1 by Neal, then running for his 16th congressional term, Amatul-Wadud was always a long shot. “Sometimes we romanticize these David and Goliath moments,” she told me, “but it's very risky to be David.” Ultimately, she lost by a 70-30 vote margin. When I asked her about her now eight-year-old loss, Amatul-Wadud spoke with hints of nostalgia as she told me she is proud to have run. “People got to see an African-American woman, in hijab, on television,” she says. “It mattered that my pictures were in the newspaper. It mattered that I was on the television, debating the congressman. And it didn't just matter to little black girls and boys and little Muslim girls and boys. It mattered to every young person.”
No single reform can guarantee quality contested elections, but a cultural change can. In Canada’s 1867 parliamentary elections (the country’s first), 25% of seats were won by “acclamation”. Silent elections remained common for several decades, but eventually—and not due to any specific policy—the practice faded: no Canadian parliamentary seat has been won by acclamation since 1957.
Canadian democratic institutions and culture promote contested elections. For one, Canada has four national parties, helping ensure at least two parties run a candidate in every district. Additionally, election season in Canada is short and doesn’t include a primary, meaning that candidates need not invest nearly as much time as they do in America.
One of Canada’s minor parties, the Rhinoceros Party, demonstrates the difference between Canadian and American political culture. Founded in 1967, the satirical Rhinoceros Party has advocated for filling the Canadian Senate by lottery and putting more green cars on the street (as in painted green). The party had its best year in 1980, when it captured 1% of the popular vote, and more recently ran 29 candidates in 2025. Though deeply unserious, Canada’s Rhinoceros Party makes politics fun and encourages politically disillusioned voters to engage.
Amatul-Wadud is a big believer in the importance of culture. “We have to raise the dignity of being an elected leader, by encouraging people to run who we think have not only the skills, but the moral compass to do so and to support them financially and with our time.” If America can create that cultural shift, American democracy will be all the better.
We may be witnessing the start of such a shift. Amatul-Wadud’s opponent, Neal, is now finishing his 38th year in Congress. In total, he has won 11 general elections and 13 primaries uncontested, but in 2026, he faced a primary challenger, and in November he will face a general election challenger. This shift may be underway, not because of an institutional reform, but because we are in an urgent political moment that is inspiring unconventional candidates to run small campaigns whose impact is anything but. America must use that energy to sustain a cultural shift before it runs out of longshot candidates.
Rafael Gonzalez is an MPP student at the Yale Jackson School of Global Affairs. Before graduate school, he worked for Boston Consulting Group, the World Food Programme, and the International Atomic Energy Agency. He has previously been published by Public Seminar for an article on industrial agriculture.
Voters cast their ballots on November 5, 2024 in Jefferson, New Hampshire.
In political science and macroeconomic analysis, conservative administrations that win governance through the Electoral College without securing the national popular vote (historically exemplified by administrations like George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016) navigate specific structural, ideological, and strategic pathways that often lead to the abandonment of traditional fiscal restraint.
Supply-Side Supremacy and "Starve the Beast"
The Theory: The core tenet shifted from "balance the budget first" to "cut taxes to stimulate growth". Proponents argue that lower tax rates generate enough economic expansion to eventually make up for lost revenue.
The Fiscal Outcome: In practice, major legislative actions—from the Reagan era to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and subsequent budget reconciliation moves permanently lowered revenues without corresponding spending cuts. This has structuralized trillion-dollar deficits as a regular feature of governance.
The "Starve the Beast" Failure: The strategic rationale was that cutting taxes would starve the federal government of funds, forcing it to shrink. However, while revenues decreased, the political appetite to cut actual federal spending never materialized.
Populist Realignment and "Entitlement Untouchability"
The Electoral Reality: The transformation of the conservative base into a more working-class movement created immense pressure to protect mandatory spending programs.
Protecting the Safety Net: Major components of the modern conservative platform explicitly oppose cutting core entitlement expenditures like Social Security and Medicare. Because these entitlements, along with Medicaid, comprise roughly half of all federal spending, making them untouchable mathematically eliminates any viable pathway to a balanced budget without massive tax increases.
The Redefinition of "Government Size" over Deficits
Redefining the Problem: Influential conservative factions and think tanks like American Compass have reframed the definition of limited government. This view posits that the true measure of government overreach is its overall expenditure and economic intervention, rather than how that spending is financed.
The Rhetorical Pivot: Under this pathway, deficits and national debt are treated as secondary management issues. Debt is effectively tolerated as long as it funds core conservative priorities—such as defense spending, border security enhancements, and domestic tax relief—rather than expanding progressive social welfare programs.
Strategic Weaponization (Minority vs. Majority Dynamics)
Opposition vs. Governance: Analysts note that fiscal conservatism frequently functions as a highly effective opposition strategy rather than a governing blueprint.
The Behavioral Pattern: When in the minority, conservative lawmakers routinely weaponize the deficit, leveraging debt ceilings and appropriations processes to block the opposition party's agenda. However, once they secure unified control of the executive and legislative branches, leadership regularly abandons these strictures to avoid the electoral backlash that comes with cutting popular public services or federal agencies.
Political scientists, economists, and historians outline these specialized pathways to explain the divergence between conservative fiscal rhetoric and actual deficit spending:
Coalition Maintenance via Asymmetric Polarization
Presidents facing structural popular majorities against them rely heavily on maintaining absolute cohesion within their geographical and coalition boundaries (the states and districts that secure the Electoral College).
The Mechanism: Government spending is targeted or maintained to insulate core voting blocs. For instance, modern populist-conservative realignments explicitly reject cuts to social safety nets that support their working-class bases.
The Fiscal Outcome: The administration protects agricultural subsidies, defense contracts, and entitlement spending relevant to their coalition, while cutting taxes, resulting in a systemic compounding of the national debt.
The Institutional "Mandate" Substitution
Presidents who ascend to office without winning the popular vote lack a broad democratic majority mandate. To assert governing legitimacy and solidify their political base, they frequently substitute a popular mandate with an ideological mandate.
The Mechanism: Rather than compromising on consensus-based fiscal policy to appeal to the popular majority, these administrations prioritize high-impact, base-satisfying legislative victories.
The Fiscal Outcome: Unfunded tax cuts and maximized defense spending are fast-tracked to signal strength and unified partisan alignment, shifting focus away from the lack of popular vote consensus.
The adoption of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), without a constitutional amendment, is an ideal push-back by voters across the political spectrum, betrayed by Non-Popular Vote Presidents, a function of the winner-take-all (WTA) regime Electoral College regime.
The NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency, operating within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. The NPVIC has been adopted by 18 states and Washington, D.C., representing 222 electoral votes. It needs 48 more electoral votes to reach the 270-threshold required to go into effect. Member states enact legislation that legally binds them to award their electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of whether that candidate won the majority in their specific state.
November 3, 2026, opportunity: elect governors and state legislatures, regardless of their party affiliation, that will adopt the NPVIC, a viable pathway to reform especially in the following states, won by Trump-47 in 2024:
Nevada, Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Arizona.
Hugh J. Campbell, Jr., CPA, is a Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) professional and a student of W. Edwards Deming, the American statistician often credited as the catalyst for the Japanese economic miracle after WWII.
