Why do local and state elections matter, and how can voters be sure that their voices are being represented in the lawmaking process? We open the third season of Democracy Decoded with an overview of democracy at the state and local level, and how we can ensure that all citizens can have their voices heard.
This episode is from the Democracy Decoded podcast as a part of The Democracy Group.
Politico published a story last week under the headline “Poll: Americans don’t just tolerate gerrymandering — they back it.”
Still, a close review of the data shows the poll does not support that conclusion. The poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly prefer either an independent redistricting process or a voter-approved process — not partisan map-drawing without voter approval. This is the exact opposite of the narrative Politico’s headline and article promoted. The numbers Politico relied on to justify its headline came only from a subset of partisans.
The most unambiguous indication of how Americans view redistricting came from the first question in the survey, which was asked of all 2,098 adults.
Respondents were presented with only four choices describing who should draw political maps:
“Political maps should be drawn through an independent, politically neutral process.”
“Political maps should be drawn by state legislatures, but approved by voters.”
“Political maps should be drawn by state legislatures, without approval by voters.”
“Don’t know.”
The results showed 38 percent favored an independent, politically neutral process. Another 34 percent supported legislature-drawn maps only if voters approved them.
Only 7 percent supported legislature-drawn maps without voter approval.
21 percent said they did not know.
A combined 72 percent either supported independent map drawing, supported voter oversight, or were uncertain.
Only a small minority favored giving state legislatures unchecked authority. Yet the headline for the poll in POLITICO says: “Poll: Americans don’t just tolerate gerrymandering — they back it.”
Independent and undecided voters showed even less support for partisan map drawing. Among those respondents, 29.8 percent supported an independent process, and 15.4 percent favored legislature-drawn maps with voter approval. Just 2.7 percent supported legislature-drawn maps without voter approval.
A majority, 52.1 percent, said they did not know which option they preferred. These results do not in any way indicate that Americans outside the two major parties support gerrymandering.
A chart in the story also contains a misleading headline, “A majority of Americans support partisan map-drawing…Percentage of Americans who support redrawing congressional districts to neutralize the other party — and those who support doing so to gain a midterm advantage.” But the chart includes only the responses of Democratic and Republican voters.
Only those who planned to support Democrats were asked whether they would support Democrats redrawing congressional districts “to gain an advantage” over Republicans. In that subgroup, 54.25 percent supported the idea, 29.55 percent neither supported nor opposed it, 9.80 percent opposed it, and 6.39 percent said they did not know.
A parallel question was asked only of those who planned to support Republicans, asking whether their party should redraw districts to gain an advantage over Democrats. Among that subgroup, 52.76 percent supported the idea, 28.06 percent neither supported nor opposed it, 12.26 percent opposed it, and 6.92 percent said they did not know.
The poll did not ask independent, undecided, or non-aligned voters these questions. It did not ask all adults whether they support partisan gerrymandering generally. The only majorities favoring partisan redistricting appeared when partisan voters were asked whether their own party should act in its own political interest in a hypothetical scenario. Those results cannot be generalized to the population at large.
The survey asked all respondents how each party should respond if the opposing party gerrymandered first. In the scenario where Republicans acted first, 20.5 percent said Democrats should challenge the maps in court, 28.8 percent said Democrats should draw maps to neutralize the impact, 19.3 percent said Democrats should draw maps to gain an advantage and 31.3 percent said they did not know.
In the reverse scenario, where Democrats acted first, 19.9 percent said Republicans should challenge in court, 30.5 percent said they should neutralize the impact, 16.0 percent said they should draw maps to gain an advantage, and 33.5 percent said they did not know.
Support for offensive, advantage-seeking gerrymandering was low in both cases, at 19.3% and 16.0%. In both questions, the most common response was “don’t know.” These numbers do not indicate that “most voters” favor using redistricting as a political weapon.
The poll also includes a breakdown of Republican respondents by whether they identify as “MAGA Republicans” or not. MAGA-identifying respondents were more supportive of partisan advantage in the Republican-only question than non-MAGA Republicans, but neither subgroup showed majority support for unchecked legislative control when all four map-drawing options were presented.
Both groups showed high levels of uncertainty in the neutral structural questions.
Politico’s article about its poll included a pro-gerrymandering quote from John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, who said there had been “an extraordinary public outcry in favor of fighting back against Donald Trump’s overreaches in basically every forum.”
The story did not mention that the largest share of respondents in the poll favored an independent, politically neutral process or that more than half of independent voters said they did not know how maps should be drawn.
The poll was conducted not by a U.S.-based election research organization, but by Public First, a London-based firm. The use of a foreign research company to measure Americans’ views on U.S. election rules is unusual, particularly for a story framed around the claim that “Americans” support gerrymandering.
Politico announced a new partnership with the firm on October 30, 2025. Neither the story nor the poll contains any information about who financed the Public First poll. Public First is owned by SHGH, Inc., known as Stonehaven Global Holdings. The Executive Chair of Stonehaven is Peter Lyburn, and Public First’s CEO is Rachel Wolf.
Wolf is a former UK political operative for the Conservative Party and Boris Johnson. She is the co-author of the Conservative Party’s 2019 manifesto, which called for leaving the EU and getting Brexit done.
The survey’s stated margin of sampling error is plus or minus two percentage points for the full sample. Politico did not publish full crosstabs publicly, although the complete dataset is available to subscribers of its Pro platform.
Is Politico's Gerrymandering Poll and Analysis Misleading? was first published by IVN and republished with permission.
Politico published a story last week under the headline “Poll: Americans don’t just tolerate gerrymandering — they back it.”
Still, a close review of the data shows the poll does not support that conclusion. The poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly prefer either an independent redistricting process or a voter-approved process — not partisan map-drawing without voter approval. This is the exact opposite of the narrative Politico’s headline and article promoted. The numbers Politico relied on to justify its headline came only from a subset of partisans.
The most unambiguous indication of how Americans view redistricting came from the first question in the survey, which was asked of all 2,098 adults.
Respondents were presented with only four choices describing who should draw political maps:
“Political maps should be drawn through an independent, politically neutral process.”
“Political maps should be drawn by state legislatures, but approved by voters.”
“Political maps should be drawn by state legislatures, without approval by voters.”
“Don’t know.”
The results showed 38 percent favored an independent, politically neutral process. Another 34 percent supported legislature-drawn maps only if voters approved them.
Only 7 percent supported legislature-drawn maps without voter approval.
21 percent said they did not know.
A combined 72 percent either supported independent map drawing, supported voter oversight, or were uncertain.
Only a small minority favored giving state legislatures unchecked authority. Yet the headline for the poll in POLITICO says: “Poll: Americans don’t just tolerate gerrymandering — they back it.”
Independent and undecided voters showed even less support for partisan map drawing. Among those respondents, 29.8 percent supported an independent process, and 15.4 percent favored legislature-drawn maps with voter approval. Just 2.7 percent supported legislature-drawn maps without voter approval.
A majority, 52.1 percent, said they did not know which option they preferred. These results do not in any way indicate that Americans outside the two major parties support gerrymandering.
A chart in the story also contains a misleading headline, “A majority of Americans support partisan map-drawing…Percentage of Americans who support redrawing congressional districts to neutralize the other party — and those who support doing so to gain a midterm advantage.” But the chart includes only the responses of Democratic and Republican voters.
Only those who planned to support Democrats were asked whether they would support Democrats redrawing congressional districts “to gain an advantage” over Republicans. In that subgroup, 54.25 percent supported the idea, 29.55 percent neither supported nor opposed it, 9.80 percent opposed it, and 6.39 percent said they did not know.
A parallel question was asked only of those who planned to support Republicans, asking whether their party should redraw districts to gain an advantage over Democrats. Among that subgroup, 52.76 percent supported the idea, 28.06 percent neither supported nor opposed it, 12.26 percent opposed it, and 6.92 percent said they did not know.
The poll did not ask independent, undecided, or non-aligned voters these questions. It did not ask all adults whether they support partisan gerrymandering generally. The only majorities favoring partisan redistricting appeared when partisan voters were asked whether their own party should act in its own political interest in a hypothetical scenario. Those results cannot be generalized to the population at large.
The survey asked all respondents how each party should respond if the opposing party gerrymandered first. In the scenario where Republicans acted first, 20.5 percent said Democrats should challenge the maps in court, 28.8 percent said Democrats should draw maps to neutralize the impact, 19.3 percent said Democrats should draw maps to gain an advantage and 31.3 percent said they did not know.
In the reverse scenario, where Democrats acted first, 19.9 percent said Republicans should challenge in court, 30.5 percent said they should neutralize the impact, 16.0 percent said they should draw maps to gain an advantage, and 33.5 percent said they did not know.
Support for offensive, advantage-seeking gerrymandering was low in both cases, at 19.3% and 16.0%. In both questions, the most common response was “don’t know.” These numbers do not indicate that “most voters” favor using redistricting as a political weapon.
The poll also includes a breakdown of Republican respondents by whether they identify as “MAGA Republicans” or not. MAGA-identifying respondents were more supportive of partisan advantage in the Republican-only question than non-MAGA Republicans, but neither subgroup showed majority support for unchecked legislative control when all four map-drawing options were presented.
Both groups showed high levels of uncertainty in the neutral structural questions.
Politico’s article about its poll included a pro-gerrymandering quote from John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, who said there had been “an extraordinary public outcry in favor of fighting back against Donald Trump’s overreaches in basically every forum.”
The story did not mention that the largest share of respondents in the poll favored an independent, politically neutral process or that more than half of independent voters said they did not know how maps should be drawn.
The poll was conducted not by a U.S.-based election research organization, but by Public First, a London-based firm. The use of a foreign research company to measure Americans’ views on U.S. election rules is unusual, particularly for a story framed around the claim that “Americans” support gerrymandering.
Politico announced a new partnership with the firm on October 30, 2025. Neither the story nor the poll contains any information about who financed the Public First poll. Public First is owned by SHGH, Inc., known as Stonehaven Global Holdings. The Executive Chair of Stonehaven is Peter Lyburn, and Public First’s CEO is Rachel Wolf.
Wolf is a former UK political operative for the Conservative Party and Boris Johnson. She is the co-author of the Conservative Party’s 2019 manifesto, which called for leaving the EU and getting Brexit done.
The survey’s stated margin of sampling error is plus or minus two percentage points for the full sample. Politico did not publish full crosstabs publicly, although the complete dataset is available to subscribers of its Pro platform.
Is Politico's Gerrymandering Poll and Analysis Misleading? was first published by IVN and republished with permission.
classroom
“Which of the following is a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution?"
The above question was labeled “medium” by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for the 2022 8th-grade U.S. history assessment.
A different question from that exam, labeled “hard,” provided an excerpt of the Declaration of Sentiments (1848) and asked: “What important historical document did the authors of this text use as their model?
In both of these examples, students are asked to identify something from United States history and government. In the second case, the identification is comparative, connecting the Declaration of Sentiments to the Declaration of Independence. Knowing this information is good and helpful context for the American story. But are these examples history assessments?
The examples above measure students’ discrete knowledge, or put more plainly, historical facts. Historical facts are important for understanding the past; in fact, they make up the past. But facts are not what make up history. History, unlike the past, is an interpretive discipline defined by a particular investigative methodology. Many may know the past, but that does not necessarily mean they can ‘do’ history.
Essentially, we are calling something “history” but only asking students to remember the past. As a result, we have built tools that measure student success based on their ability to retain concrete information, rather than on historical methodology. Investigation and interpretation, while foundational to the discipline, have been relegated to a luxury we hope to (but often don’t) attain.
This is problematic. In an education culture where people champion “digital literacy, “media literacy,” or now, “AI literacy,” millions of dollars are spent to better prepare students for this continuously moving goalpost of literacy. As it often does, education is playing catch-up to a fast-moving culture. But what if the solution has been under our noses all along? What if preparing students to be engaged citizens, equipped to both sustain our democracy and thrive in this ever-changing world, lies in the discipline of history?
The methodology within the discipline of history is often summarized as “historical thinking.” The skills that embody historical thinking include, among others: contextualization, causation, change over time, and historical significance. These skills not only help us better understand the past, but they also help us navigate the present. They foster civic dispositions our society visibly lacks, and they cement the literacy skills students need to navigate it. While there are glowing examples of teachers and projects integrating these skills and dispositions, there is a glaring missing component: assessment.
In short, we may be measuring student progress, but around the wrong thing. Does content retention produce better citizens? Does content retention prepare students for a fast-moving social and economic landscape? Recent studies and frameworks like America Succeeds' Durable Skills or The History Co: Lab’s Teen-Centered Civics have shown that they don’t.
In the summer of 2023, I found myself at a math conference. I am still a bit unsure how I ended up there, but I tuned in to the keynote speaker, Dr. Peter Liljedahl, author of the book Building Thinking Classrooms. One of the points Dr. Liljedahl reinforces in his book is that “we evaluate what we value.” Or, another way, we tell students our values based on what we evaluate. But what does the discipline of history value? What about our civic society? How can we build assessments to track student progress in those components over time?
As an educational community, we have to rethink what we value in our students. As Sam Wineburg points out in Why Learn History (When it’s Already on Your Phone), “Instead of teaching the skills needed to navigate this digital free-for-all, our education system trudges along doing the same thing but expecting a different result.” Seven years after he wrote that book, the problem persists, perhaps even growing.
For the sake of our democracy, we need to rethink how we assess history. At Thinking Nation, the nonprofit I lead, we’ve created assessments that serve three purposes:
Rather than making the content taught the end goal of any given lesson or unit, we’ve made it a means to an end. Our lessons and assessments are content-rich, but use that content to support the assessment of student thinking and writing practices. We’ve developed formative assessments that isolate individual historical thinking skills, sending a message to students that we value their ability to think historically. Our summative assessments provide students with an open-ended historical question, in which they use contextual information and historical sources to construct evidence-based arguments. These incorporate many historical thinking skills and align with literacy standards.
Students who engage with these assessments walk away from their history classrooms with a fuller understanding of the discipline of history. They can better contextualize information and evaluate evidence. They seek multiple perspectives and evaluate arguments. They exhibit intellectual empathy for diverse experiences. They are stronger readers and writers, but they are also more impactful citizens. We are evaluating what we value.
In history and social studies, investments continue to focus on the dissemination of information rather than on the methodology that defines our discipline. Students gain greater access to content knowledge, leading to their empowerment as engaged and critical thinkers. Assessment can change this. By providing a new language for success and metrics to measure it, students can walk away from our classrooms not as walking encyclopedias of the past, but as active and engaged citizens equipped to sustain our democracy. It’s a worthy shift.
Zachary Cote is the executive director of Thinking Nation, a social studies education nonprofit based in Los Angeles. Prior to this role, he taught middle school history at a public charter school in South Los Angeles.
As the U.S. retires the penny, this essay reflects on lost value—in currency, communication, and truth—highlighting the rising threat of misinformation and the need for real journalism.
232 years ago, the first penny was minted in the United States. And this November, the last pennies rolled off the line, the coin now out of production.
“A penny for your thoughts.” This common idiom, an invitation for another to share what’s on their mind, may go the way of the penny itself, into eventual obsolescence. There are increasingly few who really want to know what’s on anyone else’s mind, unless that mind is in sync with their own.
To discover what another is thinking and feeling would require us to put down our phones, stop watching “our feeds,” and give up espousing our views and justifying our opinions, at least long enough to actually listen to, or read, from reputable news sources.
It would also require empathy, which is in short supply lately.
One of the great ironies of our age is that although we are more connected, we are less so. Yet, communication is essential to human interaction. Its structural weave incorporates the mores and principles of a society, and it can even be a critical factor in the making or breaking of great movements and ages. Staying informed is essential to us personally and as a nation.
Monetary systems, like communication, are also necessary to modern civilization. The penny no longer makes sense, any more than returning to a primitive trade exchange does. Much as we might like to pay our dentist with a loaf of banana bread instead of a credit card, our complex financial world cannot accommodate such bartering. Yet, a vital monetary system and journalism as a means of communication are critical to our success as a country. The basis of both must be sound.
Since 1793, when pennies were first minted in the U.S., we’ve had a one-cent denomination. Then, of course, the value of a single cent was much higher and could buy much more. The first pennies, large coins called Lady Liberties, were of pure copper. One such coin in “mint” condition is worth millions of dollars today.
So, too, is the increased worth of the principles of that nascent age, when our country was discovering its values and forging its future. Striving to incorporate intrinsic concepts of truth, as well as ensuring our liberty to express ourselves, were powerful components in formulating our democracy.
The now-novel altruistic idea of politics as public service was prevalent in that bygone age. The first leader of our nation did not want to be a king. Washington accepted the presidency only as it incorporated a balance of power, with the legislative and judicial branches equal to the executive.
Who hasn’t been ambushed, when turning on the morning news, by an onslaught of the latest projectiles from our tweeting current president’s favored platform, “Truth Social?” But, is it “truth,” or opinion, or hyperbole? And isn’t “social” a misnomer, unless it refers to a party of just one, or possibly a group of far-right devotees? This is not communication; it’s ranting.
Nostalgic as we may be for ethical journalism and verified sources, we cannot go backwards and deny the effects of social media and its pervasiveness in our culture. Need proof? Where else can “Surfer Girl” meet “Beach Boy” and they both reside in Iowa? True story, and they’re now married.
Too often, opinions are presented as facts and hidden in anonymity. Communication nose-dives when laced with threats, or is simply a drivel of personal beliefs and conspiracy theories, or worst of all, overtly radical. According to social scientists, those caught in this net of light-speed communication, especially younger people who have not yet learned the idea of dissection before dissemination, are experiencing increased radicalization. Discretion is essential.
“Just the facts, ma’am,” is not only a catchphrase from the television series “Dragnet.” True journalism, the “fourth and unregulated branch of our government,” strives to report verifiable facts and emphasizes fair reporting. Editors, fact-checkers, and readers scrutinize a “story” to make certain it is accurate. Plus, journalists are accountable for what they write or say. Those who publish erroneous news are eventually exposed, their work devalued as “not worth the paper it was written on.”
There are many reputable news organizations in existence (you are currently reading a piece in one.) But we now live in a digital age, and publication is as easy as hitting “send.” Thus, rumors, innuendos, falsehoods, and exaggerations fly about as freely as drones in our skies, hurled like flaming spears into media feeds.
So much of today’s so-called “reporting” is divisive, derogatory, and even dangerous. And not worth even today’s penny.
Whereas good journalism is verifiable, informative, and aspires to be engaging and enlightening, and very often is. It is priceless.
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."
