September 16, 2025 • 29 mins
Tired of politicians redrawing maps to rig wins? Jerremy, Dave, and Reed dismantle gerrymandering as democracy's silent manipulator, birthed in 1812 and now supercharged by data. They spotlight solutions like county-line districts and tech upgrades to foster competition, while stressing civic education's role in preparing generations—think mock elections—to demand pragmatic leaders over polarized extremes.
Timestamps:
- (00:00) Gerrymandering Roots: Hidden Map Twists
- (01:15) Reforms Ahead: County Lines and Tech Fixes
- (14:07) Voting Tech: Phones, IDs, and Ease
- (18:19) Education Gaps: Civics in Schools
- (19:42) Voter Literacy: Boosting Turnout
- (21:02) Mock Elections: Hands-On Government
- (22:22) Real Applications: Building Informed Citizens
📢 Solving America’s Problems Podcast – Real Solutions For Real Issues
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Alex (00:00):
Gerrymandering might sound like insider talk, but it's the
hidden force deciding your voicebefore election day even starts.
Drawing from two centuries of twistedmaps, our discussion with Reed cuts
through the mess to spotlight simplesolutions—like sticking to county lines
or rethinking tech in voting—that couldbring back fair play and real progress.
Jerremy (00:23):
But I think you use a very interesting term that does come up a
lot, Reed, which is disenfranchise.
And I would like to hear a little bitmore about that because if a group of
individuals feels disenfranchised, do youthink they have the, or do they currently
have the ability to determine where thismythical salamander boundary begins?
(00:46):
Should they even vote if they seethemselves in this really weirdly
shaped, dis voting district wherethey're like, listen my voice
literally will not matter at all.
I shouldn't even show up and turn out.
Reed (01:00):
I think they should because it's a protest vote, at that point.
But you still need to cast yourvote because that's the only
lever that you have to pull.
But I can understand why peoplewouldn't at the same time.
Jerremy (01:12):
Yeah.
Yeah.
absolutely.
So if it's been around essentially sincethe entire formation of our country,
more or less, how do we get rid of it?
Is it something that we should get rid of?
Is it even get
Ridable?
Reed (01:24):
that is a really good question.
I think it would require it wouldrequire an interest in both sides
to have some kind of fair DistrictAmendment or bill that they would pass.
Because if both, if one side or theother sees an advantage that they can
have in the current system, they'renot gonna want to pass an amendment.
(01:47):
It makes perfect logical sense tous why Congress people should not
be allowed to trade stocks, right?
But they're not passing anamendment banning themselves
from trading stocks anytime soon.
And I think Gerrymandering'skind of the same, the same thing.
So I, I don't know if I don't knowhow realistically it would get fixed
(02:09):
maybe the Supreme Court but you would,the Supreme Court only decides on
cases, so they don't really, theywouldn't really have a a role to play
in that.
If the system right now, this is inthe public discourse because we have
Texas and California and Illinois allthreatening to gerrymander their states.
(02:32):
Basically because of Texasbeing the number one actor.
If every state gerrymandersthemselves to maximize congressional
districts, the Republicans will win.
They'll win more states and basically havean unassailable majority in the house.
And then I don't see themturning around and passing a fair
district act after they've won
(02:54):
the baton,
So what do you think?
Jerremy (02:57):
I, no, it's right.
It's been a it's beenhappening for a very long time.
My random thought that I was having adiscussion with Dave about was, at what
point does someone to some level ofpower say, don't we already have lines
drawn that are called counties like.
(03:22):
We, that should be the congressionalI'm so confused on how we get the
squiggles of where some random interestgets created by whoever's draw.
I wanna know who's drawing the lines.
Who's that person specifically thepolitical scientist that connects
with the person that has the data,that has all the information that
goes, Hey, this is where Dave lives.
(03:43):
You want Dave's vote?
We gotta circle building 13 A in thisrandom redrawing of this district line.
But to your point and to, andmy thought process is like, we
already have these lines drawn.
We already have very discernible lines ofwhere counties begin, where cities begin,
where townships begin and we continue.
(04:06):
And it happens all the time.
Like the that's the thing about theredrawing, like you said earlier, like
Illinois and other states are like,Hey, Texas is doing it right now.
This could, this happensfrequently as new people move.
As interest changes, income changes,as the economy changes and people move
different states and different places,these lines continue to get redrawn.
(04:27):
This is not something that happensevery 15 years, something happens almost
every 15 months, which is really wild.
So we do need, I believe, someone ofa higher interest of a higher power,
of a bigger importance to reallyjust come down with some type of law.
And yeah, to your point, maybe presenta federal case with the Supreme Court
(04:48):
to say, listen, we need to changethese gerrymandering tactics and these
laws, because this is just almost
unfair.
It's like whoever has the
Reed (04:58):
There would need to be a lawsuit.
And
the problem is that it's legal, so
there's not gonna be a lawsuit becauseyou have to allege a violation of
some law.
So it's, I, and the statedreason for it is to accurately
reflect the voter base, right?
The stated reason forredrawing the districts.
(05:19):
The real reason is to, I guess insome cases that is the real reason,
but it has the effect of drawingdistricts that are gerrymandered.
But they become, they're morescientific the more detailed
the census gets and everything.
Like back in the day with Edward Jerrythe governor, it was a rough human
(05:41):
process of drawing districts, you knewroughly how people voted in different
places, but how accurate was theircensus compared to what we have now?
When we can break down to finitedetails, how many households and
how many immigrants and ethnicmakeups of all these different areas,
that's what helps them be able togerrymander to such a scientific level.
(06:02):
And that makes
it more insidious todaythan it was in the past.
Jerremy (06:07):
Yeah.
Yeah, totally.
So if you're designing or redesigningone part of voting from registration
to ballots to, changing gerrymandering,what would you change first.
Reed (06:24):
I would change
gerrymandering first.
Jerremy (06:27):
That's it.
That's the biggest thing for you.
Okay.
So if that goes away, do you feeleverything becomes a lot more fair?
Everything becomes a lot more.
Predictable might not be the word, butlet's just say democratic, that goes away.
Things are a lot more reasonable.
Reed (06:42):
I think that's the end.
That's the goal.
I think if politicians have to competefor centrist in their districts because
the districts are more competitive,then we're gonna end up with more
pragmatic people who are able toactually negotiate with the other side.
(07:02):
And aren't just hotheaded partisans.
And then that will
give us, that would give usa more functioning government
than what we have now.
Jerremy (07:14):
Dave, what about you man?
If you had to if there's aperfect system that exists,
what do you think it would look like?
Dave (07:19):
It's definitely taken the politicians out of this, right?
Yeah.
Gerrymandering's like reallyhigh on that list, and I don't
hear anybody ever talk about it.
I was just looking at.
My district and I wasactually pretty impressed.
I live in a red state and it's prettyfirmly red and in Florida, and I'm
actually surprised my, my voting districtis just round, it's just, it's like
(07:43):
somebody drew a circle and I'm like, okay.
I don't know what the rest of itlooks like, but I'm like, I'm, that,
that seems it, it on the surface
Jerremy (07:50):
take a circle.
Dave (07:51):
yeah, it looks it looks okay.
Yeah, gerrymandering's like high onthat list I'd like more people to vote
and certainly that it's easier to vote.
I loved your idea in our first episode onthis, which is yeah we live in counties
and so just if you have, if you live in apopulous county, then yeah, you, your five
(08:11):
representatives represent that county.
If you live in a sparsecounty, a rural county, then.
One representative might representlike three or four counties.
I'm like, okay, that makes,that makes a lot of sense to me.
That's yeah, I think that's spot on.
And then, making it easier to vote.
I'm fine with the IDs and stuff.
I'm actually okay with mail-inballoting ballots too, because, we
(08:32):
have armed forces overseas that,that do that all the time, so Yeah.
Yeah.
More people, more engaged.
I, the one that I'm clearly probablystandalone on this is that, we only have
438 representatives for Congress andthen another a hundred in the Senate,
(08:52):
and that was capped a long time ago.
I think we should have a lotmore representatives, and I think
that would also drive some morediverse voices, rather than.
4 38, then maybe we have 600.
And that means that each representativerepresents fewer people because our
population has grown and it's gonna keep
I, it's always like the will of the peopleis, is the wi is the will of the people.
(09:18):
Are the will.
Yeah.
Is the will of the people beingrepresentative right now represented
Right now, it doesn't feel that way.
So yeah.
More diversity for lack of a better term.
And more people like focused on theissues that we all do care about.
Like what, when was the lasttime we talked about healthcare?
That's like the number one thingfor people, or the economy,
(09:39):
like the number two thing.
It's all kitchen table issues.
instead we're talking about tariffs.
Oh my God, if I hear that onemore time, I'm gonna lose my mind.
Jerremy (09:47):
yeah.
Reid, tell me a little bit more aboutyour general take on some countries will
actually fine people for not voting.
Do you think mandatory votingcould actually work in the
US?
Reed (10:04):
It's like you're talking about, earlier you mentioned the
people voter participation andstuff like that and voter ID laws.
One of the bars to that is, is it,I didn't actually know that voting
is not a right in the Constitution.
But one of the things that ties intois do you consider voting a right.
(10:25):
Do you consider something like requiringan ID to be an unnecessary bar?
'Cause it could be like a socioeconomiceven if it is a small barrier, it
could be a barrier to people to voting.
But is I think that the rightto vote or the right to abstain
from voting is basically asimportant as the right to not vote.
(10:46):
So I don't really think mandatory
voting would hold up in this country.
You have the freedom, right?
We're all
about freedom.
So you should have the freedom to notvote if you don't want to, and how
would you implement mandatory voting?
Just everybody vote from their phones
on
Snapchat or
Jerremy (11:07):
Yep, it's, that's right.
And Snapchat overnight rallies 3%.
It's, a, I don't think, to your point,making almost anything mandatory in
this country would ever actually work.
If you have to do something tell a bunchof Americans, they gotta do something,
they're like that's not gonna work.
Dave (11:24):
What if it was like you at least gotta show up or you gotta,
pull up your phone, like our utopia.
Pull up and pull up yourphone and cast your vote.
Even if it, the vote is,I'm not voting right.
Like at least you voted.
You voted for none of the above.
No.
Jerremy (11:39):
Good take.
that Dave.
I like that Dave.
'Cause that, yeah, that's my utopia.
Like in a random way is again, there,there has to be some technological
capacity where we make that prettyingrained using Biologistics u using
(12:00):
some type of fingerprint scan, usingsome type of face scan, using something
where you at least have that capacity.
Again, maybe it doesn't start witheverybody, but maybe it starts
with people that want to do it.
I think more people have phonesthan they have IDs in the country,
so that'd be, fascinating.
But to, to your point, Dave.
Yeah.
If they said, Hey, listen,everyone has to vote.
Your vote can be, I don't carethat, and that's a button.
(12:23):
You click the button, all is good.
You can leave.
Don't have to tell uswhat you actually think.
I think the participation.
One I fully believe, and I thinkit'd be fun to see like the
percentages of voting and how it hasshifted and transformed over time.
(12:44):
When I did my intro right, 65% ofpeople that voted and that was the
third largest ever seems radically low,
Dave (12:56):
Yeah,
Jerremy (12:57):
right?
Like you would, I would think likein the 18 hundreds, 1865, like a
hundred percent of people are votinglike, what else are they doing,
right?
Dave (13:05):
A lot fewer people could
vote.
Like it
Reed (13:06):
yeah.
Is
Dave (13:07):
White people,
Reed (13:09):
or is that,
Dave (13:10):
White, guys.
It was about it, right?
Jerremy (13:12):
YY well, exactly.
Yeah.
So that's the only people that can vote.
So all the people that can vote,it's I guess from a population
standpoint.
Reed (13:19):
actually one of the huge reforms of Andrew Jackson.
And he was a, he wasthe original Democrat.
He I don't know if he passed it, butduring his time was landholding males.
You could, now you justhad to be a white male.
They dropped the requirement to own land.
So that was
really Open the floodgatesfor voters voter turnout,
Jerremy (13:43):
Open the flood gaze.
Come on down.
Yeah.
Reed (13:47):
and you gotta think of his support.
I would imagine he probablybenefited a lot from allowing non
landholding white males to vote.
Otherwise, he prob probably wouldn't have
been, the Jacksonian Democrat that he was.
Jerremy (14:06):
Yeah.
Dave (14:07):
Hey so let's say we added tech to this, right?
Let's say you could vote from yourphone you buy stuff on your phone.
You do a lot of you trade onyour phone like you move money.
Like some of the most important thingsin your life, you, you do on your
phone or in front of your computer.
Do you think, could we do that safely?
Jerremy (14:26):
Reid, you're an eng, you're an engineer.
Dave (14:28):
yeah.
What do you think Reid?
Reed (14:29):
Oh, I'm not an engineer.
No, I, but if you bank on your phone,you can probably vote on your phone.
Yeah.
Because sure it has, there's holes in it.
But people, like you said,people trust their whole life
savings with doing it electronically, not?
Dave (14:48):
But I also get like a notification it seems like once a month of
being like, Hey, your stuff's beencompromised on Pinterest or whatever.
Jerremy (14:56):
Yeah, I mean there, there's tech that can do it.
Or at some point, in my opinion, it, itcould, it can or could definitely be done.
We could figure it out.
We could figure out how to becomemore tech savvy with voting.
I think that would increasethe capacity to vote.
I do think we should findways to make voting relatively
easier, safer, more trackable.
When I, say more trackable.
(15:16):
I just mean like, to, to Reid'spoint, like the census of just, hey.
It's really, really easy to do this.
It's not that hard family fill outthis, sign up for this, do this thing.
I, I still find mail-invoting very archaic.
And I think that if one were to dothat again, it should just be something
where it's maybe you have to go througha couple more verification steps.
(15:40):
That's all.
Instead of one, which is just like youshow an ID and you take a vote, like just
a couple of, just two or three more steps.
Ultimately, because there are still tonsand tons of people who are not voting.
That's really the thought process.
So in your general circle, Reid,the people that you just talked
to or hear about from your day today, why do you feel or hear or see
(16:06):
people that do not vote presently?
Like what's their big hangup
for it?
Reed (16:11):
I think most people in my circle do vote.
It's probably a higher turnoutthan the general public.
But I think the hangout.
Four people is just civic literacy,really just knowing when an election
is, a lot of people like the midtermsare coming up next year and everybody
knows the midterms are a very, it'sa low turnout election cycle because
(16:36):
people don't know there's an election.
The people know when there's presidentialelection because how could you not?
But people don't really know when,if there's not a president up for
election, they're not really aware
that there is
an election at all.
So it's just basic education
Really.
Dave (16:56):
What What about you Jerremy?
Reed (16:58):
And like you said the
highest turn election in history wasin 2020, and that was during COVID.
So it was the center of the newscycle and it, the election itself,
COVID was the primary issue.
So that was the oneelection where everybody.
At least knew that there was an election.
Everybody had an opinion on it.
So it was the most involvedelection, I think, I believe that
(17:21):
2008 was the previous record holder.
because Barack Obama, anotherbig historical election,
Jerremy (17:29):
Yeah.
you
just
had the, the financial crisis andBush was getting out of office, so
you had multiple people running.
Yeah I think Dave, for me,just thinking through man, I.
The way I see it, people not voting.
Our boy Reid nailed it.
He said, my favorite word it is education.
(17:53):
And again, back to just basic school,I looked over my son Gabriel's 15,
15-year-old high school homeworklast night when I got home at 10
o'clock from traveling all day.
Just glazed over it.
Just garbage.
Garbage.
Just garbage.
The things like the, he's, they, soworld history is a map of Europe.
(18:18):
Cool.
That's cool I guess.
Sure.
All right.
Thumbs up to map of Europe and thenmath parallelograms just random geometry
shapes and like how to graph them.
Things of that nature.
And just a bunch of other, just so I'mlooking at this, thinking to myself,
knowing that we have this discussioncoming up, I wonder if any class
(18:42):
in his school is teaching the highschoolers about the midterm elections.
I wonder if there's any classwhere it's like, Hey, this is
what a midterm election is.
Here is like I, I get it that certainschools have American government.
I realize that, but that's a very,not only few and far in between,
(19:03):
but it's also something that'sgonna be taught very uniquely, very
interestingly, probably very polarizing.
And also just it's uninformed onthe general public of the general
public is lost on what's happening.
Remember, I am at the time, 26,27, 28, going into a middle school.
Library casting votes forthings I have no clue about.
(19:27):
And I'm pretty well informedon just the general world at
the time, for the most part.
And I don't know very much about anythingabout who, what, who I'm voting for,
what I'm voting for, the purposes behind.
I'm voting.
There's just not a lot of information.
And so I think what would also berelevant to Reed's Point is just some,
(19:48):
obviously Google has incredible access,but I just don't feel like the general
public would agree that there's a reallybeautiful system of open information and
education about what voting, who voting,where, voting, why all the information.
A lot of the topics, a lot of the people.
Dave (20:04):
Huh.
Jerremy (20:05):
just feel like that's the main point.
Obviously most of my people voteas well, but the people that don't
vote in general, I think it'sjust 'cause of lack of education.
They just don't know.
Dave (20:12):
So did you all have like civics classes and social study
classes and history classes?
Like I'm your son's 15, right?
Like I, I had all those thingsI remember real clearly that my
teacher brought in sample ballotsand we'd actually go through it.
It'd be like, okay, how does this work?
And so did you have those classes?
Jerremy (20:32):
never once.
Not me personally.
Reed.
Reed (20:36):
I don't really remember if we had anything specifically like that.
I think the high school level historyand civics is severely lacking.
And I took AP classes in high school,and then I minored in history in
college, so I don't really have a.
Normal experience.
(20:57):
Like I think I, I received morehistory education than most people do.
But I just had a thought while you weretalking Jerremy about what would be a
great idea for a government high schoolclass or a government civics class.
You could divide the class up, evenhave them hold a mock election and
choose was like, let's say five or six.
Let's say there's 25 people in the class.
(21:19):
Choose five or six people that aregonna be the government and the other
people are gonna be the people, right?
And the government, they have to war game.
Things are gonna do, like wegotta fund a war against so
and so we need to raise money.
We're gonna sell bonds.
We gotta have this much interest rate.
Our people are producing thismuch money with the economy.
We're gonna have to recruitfive of you to be soldiers.
(21:42):
So we're gonna send you off to war.
Let's say two of you die, and we,all right, we're running outta money.
We gotta sell more bonds, ohwe gotta pay off our debts.
We're gonna print more money.
And you could create like a real worldscenario that would give kids a much, a
better understanding of the way that thegovernment works and the way the policy
and the economy interact with each other.
(22:03):
Much better than what you get with theeducation system the way it is right now.
Because I don't think I knew whata bond was until I was probably 30.
Jerremy (22:14):
Yeah.
Yeah.
Reed (22:15):
that word all the time, but
you don't know what it, youdon't really know what it is.
Jerremy (22:19):
No clue.
No clue.
And
I
think in you
mentioned it really well, man yousaid the word high school a few
times, so did I, but I think that'sprobably the time for it, right?
Like I don't think youneed to be berating.
You can talk very basic electionprinciples and some history stuff
in middle school, but I think highschool is the time for it because
when you turn 18 in this country,you have the ability to vote, not the
right, as we mentioned a couple times.
(22:41):
It's weird, but alright, that's fine.
But yeah, you turn 18 man, boom.
Now you can vote.
And to your point, man,you don't remember that?
'cause I don't think it happened homie.
We don't remember 'causeit didn't really occur.
Dave (22:57):
Wait.
Jerremy (22:57):
didn't really have tons and tons of information.
Again, just the real world thing.
The applications that impact this country.
Taxes.
We didn't learn how to fill out taxes.
We didn't learn what taxes.
We don't know anything about taxes.
When you exit high school, for themajority of all people that go through
high school, you do not learn properly.
(23:19):
What are taxes?
Why do you pay them?
How much are you paying?
And how can you legally pay less?
You're not taught these things.
Every single person on earth is asubject to learning a better education.
And here in the US I think thatjust some of these basic life
principles just get way overlooked.
(23:39):
And we don't spend any, again if myson Gabriel wants to become, which
I know he doesn't an architect,some type of engineer, a chemist.
He can start learning some of the thingshe's learning right now in high school.
Otherwise they should beburning into his brain.
How elections work, how moneyworks, how income works, how
budgeting works, how taxes work.
(24:00):
Again, yes, parents should and canteach that and my kids are gonna
be fine, but for every other kid inthe world, I think it's just really
crucial that they learn this stuff andit's really just openly not taught.
And so I think that'd befantastic, man, that, that game,
the gamification of it, right?
Frequently doing that often where peopleknow and they just pour into themselves
(24:22):
and just get really in, ingrained into it.
Dave (24:25):
I, I you guys are blowing my mind.
I'm not that much older than you all,but I did I did learn all of that.
Like we had Model un, wehad government debates.
We I, we didn't learn abouttaxes, but definitely about
banking and how money works.
I learned that in gradeschool, so I, I'm like, what?
(24:46):
What took up all that time?
What did they get rid of?
What did they
add in order
to get rid of all
that?
Reed (24:52):
We had, I remember learning about the gold standard, 1898, the guy that
campaigned against against fiat currency.
'cause he was a big gold guy.
But we, it wasn't really they didn'treally explain I don't feel like
I really learned how a fiat systemworked coming out of high school.
(25:13):
Like you, you knew alittle bit of details.
Like we got off the gold standard, westarted the Federal Reserve in 1913,
and I, we didn't really get off thegold standard until Nixon, I think.
But you don't really know what that means.
You don't really know the basisfor how the economy works.
You just, you have these kindof vague details in your head,
(25:35):
like what's the gold standard?
What are we on now asopposed to the gold standard?
Jerremy (25:41):
Yeah, it is it is quite fascinating, the things that we learn,
the things that we study, the thingsthey put a lot of importance on.
I met Dave with most of mymost of Gabe's teachers.
And I remember the Englishteacher, just asking her like,
Hey books you guys are reading.
And she's I got these three books.
I just gotta get we gotta get through 'em.
I'm like who's dictating these books?
(26:01):
She's I'm, from the higher ups I gotta,we gotta get through this, these books.
And like it is just like thisinformation that gets taught.
Yeah, exactly.
It is, man.
It's wild.
But I think that there's just sucha fun and unique and cool topic
because I do think, and again, my,I think my general consensus leads
towards voting should be easier.
(26:23):
It should be safer, andshould be more informed.
And I think if those, when I say safer,just safer in the sense that it's
available, it's easy, it's accessible.
People know it, people are aware ofit, and it's not something that's
extremely easily manipulated,like what's happening right now.
(26:43):
And I think that's pretty,pretty straightforward, right?
Don't manipulate elections.
Let's have a, let's actually hear whatthe general population believe and
think on average what is the consensus
Dave (26:57):
Oh
Jerremy (26:57):
and find,
Dave (26:58):
I got another one to throw in there for you.
Jerremy (27:01):
Oh, hit me, dude.
What What we got.
Dave (27:03):
You can't run for anything until 90 days before the election.
There's already people like lining up torun for president three years from now.
I'm like, oh, enough of this.
No, I don't want to hear anything until 90days before or else you're disqualified.
No ads,
no nothing.
Reed (27:22):
I think compressing it into a tight window like that.
Wouldn't really serve the purpose ofhaving a more educated voter pool.
I get what you're saying about, it'sridiculous how it basically never
ends, but that's, you need theseideas to marinate in order to have any
kind of filtering down to the general
(27:44):
population.
And even then, I don't, there's not awhole lot of filtering down happening.
Dave (27:50):
Fair.
I also think it's more noise than signal,
Reed (27:53):
yeah.
When do you
guys think about the people who
are very supportive of voter ID laws?
How would they
feel about mandatory voting?
Jerremy (28:02):
they I think the majority of 'em will be very pro mandatory voting.
'cause then it was like,listen, you have to vote.
And when you have to vote,you have to show an id.
Simple as that.
I think that would be their I, don't know.
I think that'd probably be their stance.
I wouldn't, I don't think I'dever sign off on mandatory
voting, at least in this country.
But again, man, I think it couldbe a relatively simplistic approach
(28:23):
where it's not that extreme.
Like you don't have to have a passport,you don't have to have a driver's license.
Like you can get a id.
Essentially for free.
I believe just like I am ahuman being that lives in this
country and I'm a citizen.
I think that Id doesn't cost very much.
Especially if you live in cities thathave incredible transportation, right?
Like big cities, New York City, youdon't need a driver's license, right?
(28:46):
And if you don't have a passport,that's fine, but library
card, like, what can you get?
Like
Dave (28:51):
costco card.
Yeah.
Jerremy (28:52):
Yeah.
What can you actually get?
That's pretty easy.
That's pretty simple.
And I think that there could be tonsof places if they said, Hey, listen,
you have to have a voter, ID got it.
Every CVS, every Walgreens, everyWalmart, every Kroger, every place
that you walk into every library,they have a free, go ahead and take
this picture and we'll give you an id.
(29:13):
That wouldn't
be that
difficult.
Alex (29:14):
We've mapped out the gerrymandering pitfalls and spotlighted tech-savvy ways
to level the field, but true change startswith what we teach the next generation.
In the final segment, Reed divesinto how education gaps fuel
these issues—and explores AI'swild role in tomorrow's politics.
You won't want to misshow it all ties together.
Gerrymandering might sound like insider talk, but it's the
hidden force deciding your voicebefore election day even starts.
Drawing from two centuries of twistedmaps, our discussion with Reed cuts
through the mess to spotlight simplesolutions—like sticking to county lines
or rethinking tech in voting—that couldbring back fair play and real progress.
Jerremy (00:23):
But I think you use a very interesting term that does come up a
lot, Reed, which is disenfranchise.
And I would like to hear a little bitmore about that because if a group of
individuals feels disenfranchised, do youthink they have the, or do they currently
have the ability to determine where thismythical salamander boundary begins?
(00:46):
Should they even vote if they seethemselves in this really weirdly
shaped, dis voting district wherethey're like, listen my voice
literally will not matter at all.
I shouldn't even show up and turn out.
Reed (01:00):
I think they should because it's a protest vote, at that point.
But you still need to cast yourvote because that's the only
lever that you have to pull.
But I can understand why peoplewouldn't at the same time.
Jerremy (01:12):
Yeah.
Yeah.
absolutely.
So if it's been around essentially sincethe entire formation of our country,
more or less, how do we get rid of it?
Is it something that we should get rid of?
Is it even get
Ridable?
Reed (01:24):
that is a really good question.
I think it would require it wouldrequire an interest in both sides
to have some kind of fair DistrictAmendment or bill that they would pass.
Because if both, if one side or theother sees an advantage that they can
have in the current system, they'renot gonna want to pass an amendment.
(01:47):
It makes perfect logical sense tous why Congress people should not
be allowed to trade stocks, right?
But they're not passing anamendment banning themselves
from trading stocks anytime soon.
And I think Gerrymandering'skind of the same, the same thing.
So I, I don't know if I don't knowhow realistically it would get fixed
(02:09):
maybe the Supreme Court but you would,the Supreme Court only decides on
cases, so they don't really, theywouldn't really have a a role to play
in that.
If the system right now, this is inthe public discourse because we have
Texas and California and Illinois allthreatening to gerrymander their states.
(02:32):
Basically because of Texasbeing the number one actor.
If every state gerrymandersthemselves to maximize congressional
districts, the Republicans will win.
They'll win more states and basically havean unassailable majority in the house.
And then I don't see themturning around and passing a fair
district act after they've won
(02:54):
the baton,
So what do you think?
Jerremy (02:57):
I, no, it's right.
It's been a it's beenhappening for a very long time.
My random thought that I was having adiscussion with Dave about was, at what
point does someone to some level ofpower say, don't we already have lines
drawn that are called counties like.
(03:22):
We, that should be the congressionalI'm so confused on how we get the
squiggles of where some random interestgets created by whoever's draw.
I wanna know who's drawing the lines.
Who's that person specifically thepolitical scientist that connects
with the person that has the data,that has all the information that
goes, Hey, this is where Dave lives.
(03:43):
You want Dave's vote?
We gotta circle building 13 A in thisrandom redrawing of this district line.
But to your point and to, andmy thought process is like, we
already have these lines drawn.
We already have very discernible lines ofwhere counties begin, where cities begin,
where townships begin and we continue.
(04:06):
And it happens all the time.
Like the that's the thing about theredrawing, like you said earlier, like
Illinois and other states are like,Hey, Texas is doing it right now.
This could, this happensfrequently as new people move.
As interest changes, income changes,as the economy changes and people move
different states and different places,these lines continue to get redrawn.
(04:27):
This is not something that happensevery 15 years, something happens almost
every 15 months, which is really wild.
So we do need, I believe, someone ofa higher interest of a higher power,
of a bigger importance to reallyjust come down with some type of law.
And yeah, to your point, maybe presenta federal case with the Supreme Court
(04:48):
to say, listen, we need to changethese gerrymandering tactics and these
laws, because this is just almost
unfair.
It's like whoever has the
Reed (04:58):
There would need to be a lawsuit.
And
the problem is that it's legal, so
there's not gonna be a lawsuit becauseyou have to allege a violation of
some law.
So it's, I, and the statedreason for it is to accurately
reflect the voter base, right?
The stated reason forredrawing the districts.
(05:19):
The real reason is to, I guess insome cases that is the real reason,
but it has the effect of drawingdistricts that are gerrymandered.
But they become, they're morescientific the more detailed
the census gets and everything.
Like back in the day with Edward Jerrythe governor, it was a rough human
(05:41):
process of drawing districts, you knewroughly how people voted in different
places, but how accurate was theircensus compared to what we have now?
When we can break down to finitedetails, how many households and
how many immigrants and ethnicmakeups of all these different areas,
that's what helps them be able togerrymander to such a scientific level.
(06:02):
And that makes
it more insidious todaythan it was in the past.
Jerremy (06:07):
Yeah.
Yeah, totally.
So if you're designing or redesigningone part of voting from registration
to ballots to, changing gerrymandering,what would you change first.
Reed (06:24):
I would change
gerrymandering first.
Jerremy (06:27):
That's it.
That's the biggest thing for you.
Okay.
So if that goes away, do you feeleverything becomes a lot more fair?
Everything becomes a lot more.
Predictable might not be the word, butlet's just say democratic, that goes away.
Things are a lot more reasonable.
Reed (06:42):
I think that's the end.
That's the goal.
I think if politicians have to competefor centrist in their districts because
the districts are more competitive,then we're gonna end up with more
pragmatic people who are able toactually negotiate with the other side.
(07:02):
And aren't just hotheaded partisans.
And then that will
give us, that would give usa more functioning government
than what we have now.
Jerremy (07:14):
Dave, what about you man?
If you had to if there's aperfect system that exists,
what do you think it would look like?
Dave (07:19):
It's definitely taken the politicians out of this, right?
Yeah.
Gerrymandering's like reallyhigh on that list, and I don't
hear anybody ever talk about it.
I was just looking at.
My district and I wasactually pretty impressed.
I live in a red state and it's prettyfirmly red and in Florida, and I'm
actually surprised my, my voting districtis just round, it's just, it's like
(07:43):
somebody drew a circle and I'm like, okay.
I don't know what the rest of itlooks like, but I'm like, I'm, that,
that seems it, it on the surface
Jerremy (07:50):
take a circle.
Dave (07:51):
yeah, it looks it looks okay.
Yeah, gerrymandering's like high onthat list I'd like more people to vote
and certainly that it's easier to vote.
I loved your idea in our first episode onthis, which is yeah we live in counties
and so just if you have, if you live in apopulous county, then yeah, you, your five
(08:11):
representatives represent that county.
If you live in a sparsecounty, a rural county, then.
One representative might representlike three or four counties.
I'm like, okay, that makes,that makes a lot of sense to me.
That's yeah, I think that's spot on.
And then, making it easier to vote.
I'm fine with the IDs and stuff.
I'm actually okay with mail-inballoting ballots too, because, we
(08:32):
have armed forces overseas that,that do that all the time, so Yeah.
Yeah.
More people, more engaged.
I, the one that I'm clearly probablystandalone on this is that, we only have
438 representatives for Congress andthen another a hundred in the Senate,
(08:52):
and that was capped a long time ago.
I think we should have a lotmore representatives, and I think
that would also drive some morediverse voices, rather than.
4 38, then maybe we have 600.
And that means that each representativerepresents fewer people because our
population has grown and it's gonna keep
I, it's always like the will of the peopleis, is the wi is the will of the people.
(09:18):
Are the will.
Yeah.
Is the will of the people beingrepresentative right now represented
Right now, it doesn't feel that way.
So yeah.
More diversity for lack of a better term.
And more people like focused on theissues that we all do care about.
Like what, when was the lasttime we talked about healthcare?
That's like the number one thingfor people, or the economy,
(09:39):
like the number two thing.
It's all kitchen table issues.
instead we're talking about tariffs.
Oh my God, if I hear that onemore time, I'm gonna lose my mind.
Jerremy (09:47):
yeah.
Reid, tell me a little bit more aboutyour general take on some countries will
actually fine people for not voting.
Do you think mandatory votingcould actually work in the
US?
Reed (10:04):
It's like you're talking about, earlier you mentioned the
people voter participation andstuff like that and voter ID laws.
One of the bars to that is, is it,I didn't actually know that voting
is not a right in the Constitution.
But one of the things that ties intois do you consider voting a right.
(10:25):
Do you consider something like requiringan ID to be an unnecessary bar?
'Cause it could be like a socioeconomiceven if it is a small barrier, it
could be a barrier to people to voting.
But is I think that the rightto vote or the right to abstain
from voting is basically asimportant as the right to not vote.
(10:46):
So I don't really think mandatory
voting would hold up in this country.
You have the freedom, right?
We're all
about freedom.
So you should have the freedom to notvote if you don't want to, and how
would you implement mandatory voting?
Just everybody vote from their phones
on
Snapchat or
Jerremy (11:07):
Yep, it's, that's right.
And Snapchat overnight rallies 3%.
It's, a, I don't think, to your point,making almost anything mandatory in
this country would ever actually work.
If you have to do something tell a bunchof Americans, they gotta do something,
they're like that's not gonna work.
Dave (11:24):
What if it was like you at least gotta show up or you gotta,
pull up your phone, like our utopia.
Pull up and pull up yourphone and cast your vote.
Even if it, the vote is,I'm not voting right.
Like at least you voted.
You voted for none of the above.
No.
Jerremy (11:39):
Good take.
that Dave.
I like that Dave.
'Cause that, yeah, that's my utopia.
Like in a random way is again, there,there has to be some technological
capacity where we make that prettyingrained using Biologistics u using
(12:00):
some type of fingerprint scan, usingsome type of face scan, using something
where you at least have that capacity.
Again, maybe it doesn't start witheverybody, but maybe it starts
with people that want to do it.
I think more people have phonesthan they have IDs in the country,
so that'd be, fascinating.
But to, to your point, Dave.
Yeah.
If they said, Hey, listen,everyone has to vote.
Your vote can be, I don't carethat, and that's a button.
(12:23):
You click the button, all is good.
You can leave.
Don't have to tell uswhat you actually think.
I think the participation.
One I fully believe, and I thinkit'd be fun to see like the
percentages of voting and how it hasshifted and transformed over time.
(12:44):
When I did my intro right, 65% ofpeople that voted and that was the
third largest ever seems radically low,
Dave (12:56):
Yeah,
Jerremy (12:57):
right?
Like you would, I would think likein the 18 hundreds, 1865, like a
hundred percent of people are votinglike, what else are they doing,
right?
Dave (13:05):
A lot fewer people could
vote.
Like it
Reed (13:06):
yeah.
Is
Dave (13:07):
White people,
Reed (13:09):
or is that,
Dave (13:10):
White, guys.
It was about it, right?
Jerremy (13:12):
YY well, exactly.
Yeah.
So that's the only people that can vote.
So all the people that can vote,it's I guess from a population
standpoint.
Reed (13:19):
actually one of the huge reforms of Andrew Jackson.
And he was a, he wasthe original Democrat.
He I don't know if he passed it, butduring his time was landholding males.
You could, now you justhad to be a white male.
They dropped the requirement to own land.
So that was
really Open the floodgatesfor voters voter turnout,
Jerremy (13:43):
Open the flood gaze.
Come on down.
Yeah.
Reed (13:47):
and you gotta think of his support.
I would imagine he probablybenefited a lot from allowing non
landholding white males to vote.
Otherwise, he prob probably wouldn't have
been, the Jacksonian Democrat that he was.
Jerremy (14:06):
Yeah.
Dave (14:07):
Hey so let's say we added tech to this, right?
Let's say you could vote from yourphone you buy stuff on your phone.
You do a lot of you trade onyour phone like you move money.
Like some of the most important thingsin your life, you, you do on your
phone or in front of your computer.
Do you think, could we do that safely?
Jerremy (14:26):
Reid, you're an eng, you're an engineer.
Dave (14:28):
yeah.
What do you think Reid?
Reed (14:29):
Oh, I'm not an engineer.
No, I, but if you bank on your phone,you can probably vote on your phone.
Yeah.
Because sure it has, there's holes in it.
But people, like you said,people trust their whole life
savings with doing it electronically, not?
Dave (14:48):
But I also get like a notification it seems like once a month of
being like, Hey, your stuff's beencompromised on Pinterest or whatever.
Jerremy (14:56):
Yeah, I mean there, there's tech that can do it.
Or at some point, in my opinion, it, itcould, it can or could definitely be done.
We could figure it out.
We could figure out how to becomemore tech savvy with voting.
I think that would increasethe capacity to vote.
I do think we should findways to make voting relatively
easier, safer, more trackable.
When I, say more trackable.
(15:16):
I just mean like, to, to Reid'spoint, like the census of just, hey.
It's really, really easy to do this.
It's not that hard family fill outthis, sign up for this, do this thing.
I, I still find mail-invoting very archaic.
And I think that if one were to dothat again, it should just be something
where it's maybe you have to go througha couple more verification steps.
(15:40):
That's all.
Instead of one, which is just like youshow an ID and you take a vote, like just
a couple of, just two or three more steps.
Ultimately, because there are still tonsand tons of people who are not voting.
That's really the thought process.
So in your general circle, Reid,the people that you just talked
to or hear about from your day today, why do you feel or hear or see
(16:06):
people that do not vote presently?
Like what's their big hangup
for it?
Reed (16:11):
I think most people in my circle do vote.
It's probably a higher turnoutthan the general public.
But I think the hangout.
Four people is just civic literacy,really just knowing when an election
is, a lot of people like the midtermsare coming up next year and everybody
knows the midterms are a very, it'sa low turnout election cycle because
(16:36):
people don't know there's an election.
The people know when there's presidentialelection because how could you not?
But people don't really know when,if there's not a president up for
election, they're not really aware
that there is
an election at all.
So it's just basic education
Really.
Dave (16:56):
What What about you Jerremy?
Reed (16:58):
And like you said the
highest turn election in history wasin 2020, and that was during COVID.
So it was the center of the newscycle and it, the election itself,
COVID was the primary issue.
So that was the oneelection where everybody.
At least knew that there was an election.
Everybody had an opinion on it.
So it was the most involvedelection, I think, I believe that
(17:21):
2008 was the previous record holder.
because Barack Obama, anotherbig historical election,
Jerremy (17:29):
Yeah.
you
just
had the, the financial crisis andBush was getting out of office, so
you had multiple people running.
Yeah I think Dave, for me,just thinking through man, I.
The way I see it, people not voting.
Our boy Reid nailed it.
He said, my favorite word it is education.
(17:53):
And again, back to just basic school,I looked over my son Gabriel's 15,
15-year-old high school homeworklast night when I got home at 10
o'clock from traveling all day.
Just glazed over it.
Just garbage.
Garbage.
Just garbage.
The things like the, he's, they, soworld history is a map of Europe.
(18:18):
Cool.
That's cool I guess.
Sure.
All right.
Thumbs up to map of Europe and thenmath parallelograms just random geometry
shapes and like how to graph them.
Things of that nature.
And just a bunch of other, just so I'mlooking at this, thinking to myself,
knowing that we have this discussioncoming up, I wonder if any class
(18:42):
in his school is teaching the highschoolers about the midterm elections.
I wonder if there's any classwhere it's like, Hey, this is
what a midterm election is.
Here is like I, I get it that certainschools have American government.
I realize that, but that's a very,not only few and far in between,
(19:03):
but it's also something that'sgonna be taught very uniquely, very
interestingly, probably very polarizing.
And also just it's uninformed onthe general public of the general
public is lost on what's happening.
Remember, I am at the time, 26,27, 28, going into a middle school.
Library casting votes forthings I have no clue about.
(19:27):
And I'm pretty well informedon just the general world at
the time, for the most part.
And I don't know very much about anythingabout who, what, who I'm voting for,
what I'm voting for, the purposes behind.
I'm voting.
There's just not a lot of information.
And so I think what would also berelevant to Reed's Point is just some,
(19:48):
obviously Google has incredible access,but I just don't feel like the general
public would agree that there's a reallybeautiful system of open information and
education about what voting, who voting,where, voting, why all the information.
A lot of the topics, a lot of the people.
Dave (20:04):
Huh.
Jerremy (20:05):
just feel like that's the main point.
Obviously most of my people voteas well, but the people that don't
vote in general, I think it'sjust 'cause of lack of education.
They just don't know.
Dave (20:12):
So did you all have like civics classes and social study
classes and history classes?
Like I'm your son's 15, right?
Like I, I had all those thingsI remember real clearly that my
teacher brought in sample ballotsand we'd actually go through it.
It'd be like, okay, how does this work?
And so did you have those classes?
Jerremy (20:32):
never once.
Not me personally.
Reed.
Reed (20:36):
I don't really remember if we had anything specifically like that.
I think the high school level historyand civics is severely lacking.
And I took AP classes in high school,and then I minored in history in
college, so I don't really have a.
Normal experience.
(20:57):
Like I think I, I received morehistory education than most people do.
But I just had a thought while you weretalking Jerremy about what would be a
great idea for a government high schoolclass or a government civics class.
You could divide the class up, evenhave them hold a mock election and
choose was like, let's say five or six.
Let's say there's 25 people in the class.
(21:19):
Choose five or six people that aregonna be the government and the other
people are gonna be the people, right?
And the government, they have to war game.
Things are gonna do, like wegotta fund a war against so
and so we need to raise money.
We're gonna sell bonds.
We gotta have this much interest rate.
Our people are producing thismuch money with the economy.
We're gonna have to recruitfive of you to be soldiers.
(21:42):
So we're gonna send you off to war.
Let's say two of you die, and we,all right, we're running outta money.
We gotta sell more bonds, ohwe gotta pay off our debts.
We're gonna print more money.
And you could create like a real worldscenario that would give kids a much, a
better understanding of the way that thegovernment works and the way the policy
and the economy interact with each other.
(22:03):
Much better than what you get with theeducation system the way it is right now.
Because I don't think I knew whata bond was until I was probably 30.
Jerremy (22:14):
Yeah.
Yeah.
Reed (22:15):
that word all the time, but
you don't know what it, youdon't really know what it is.
Jerremy (22:19):
No clue.
No clue.
And
I
think in you
mentioned it really well, man yousaid the word high school a few
times, so did I, but I think that'sprobably the time for it, right?
Like I don't think youneed to be berating.
You can talk very basic electionprinciples and some history stuff
in middle school, but I think highschool is the time for it because
when you turn 18 in this country,you have the ability to vote, not the
right, as we mentioned a couple times.
(22:41):
It's weird, but alright, that's fine.
But yeah, you turn 18 man, boom.
Now you can vote.
And to your point, man,you don't remember that?
'cause I don't think it happened homie.
We don't remember 'causeit didn't really occur.
Dave (22:57):
Wait.
Jerremy (22:57):
didn't really have tons and tons of information.
Again, just the real world thing.
The applications that impact this country.
Taxes.
We didn't learn how to fill out taxes.
We didn't learn what taxes.
We don't know anything about taxes.
When you exit high school, for themajority of all people that go through
high school, you do not learn properly.
(23:19):
What are taxes?
Why do you pay them?
How much are you paying?
And how can you legally pay less?
You're not taught these things.
Every single person on earth is asubject to learning a better education.
And here in the US I think thatjust some of these basic life
principles just get way overlooked.
(23:39):
And we don't spend any, again if myson Gabriel wants to become, which
I know he doesn't an architect,some type of engineer, a chemist.
He can start learning some of the thingshe's learning right now in high school.
Otherwise they should beburning into his brain.
How elections work, how moneyworks, how income works, how
budgeting works, how taxes work.
(24:00):
Again, yes, parents should and canteach that and my kids are gonna
be fine, but for every other kid inthe world, I think it's just really
crucial that they learn this stuff andit's really just openly not taught.
And so I think that'd befantastic, man, that, that game,
the gamification of it, right?
Frequently doing that often where peopleknow and they just pour into themselves
(24:22):
and just get really in, ingrained into it.
Dave (24:25):
I, I you guys are blowing my mind.
I'm not that much older than you all,but I did I did learn all of that.
Like we had Model un, wehad government debates.
We I, we didn't learn abouttaxes, but definitely about
banking and how money works.
I learned that in gradeschool, so I, I'm like, what?
(24:46):
What took up all that time?
What did they get rid of?
What did they
add in order
to get rid of all
that?
Reed (24:52):
We had, I remember learning about the gold standard, 1898, the guy that
campaigned against against fiat currency.
'cause he was a big gold guy.
But we, it wasn't really they didn'treally explain I don't feel like
I really learned how a fiat systemworked coming out of high school.
(25:13):
Like you, you knew alittle bit of details.
Like we got off the gold standard, westarted the Federal Reserve in 1913,
and I, we didn't really get off thegold standard until Nixon, I think.
But you don't really know what that means.
You don't really know the basisfor how the economy works.
You just, you have these kindof vague details in your head,
(25:35):
like what's the gold standard?
What are we on now asopposed to the gold standard?
Jerremy (25:41):
Yeah, it is it is quite fascinating, the things that we learn,
the things that we study, the thingsthey put a lot of importance on.
I met Dave with most of mymost of Gabe's teachers.
And I remember the Englishteacher, just asking her like,
Hey books you guys are reading.
And she's I got these three books.
I just gotta get we gotta get through 'em.
I'm like who's dictating these books?
(26:01):
She's I'm, from the higher ups I gotta,we gotta get through this, these books.
And like it is just like thisinformation that gets taught.
Yeah, exactly.
It is, man.
It's wild.
But I think that there's just sucha fun and unique and cool topic
because I do think, and again, my,I think my general consensus leads
towards voting should be easier.
(26:23):
It should be safer, andshould be more informed.
And I think if those, when I say safer,just safer in the sense that it's
available, it's easy, it's accessible.
People know it, people are aware ofit, and it's not something that's
extremely easily manipulated,like what's happening right now.
(26:43):
And I think that's pretty,pretty straightforward, right?
Don't manipulate elections.
Let's have a, let's actually hear whatthe general population believe and
think on average what is the consensus
Dave (26:57):
Oh
Jerremy (26:57):
and find,
Dave (26:58):
I got another one to throw in there for you.
Jerremy (27:01):
Oh, hit me, dude.
What What we got.
Dave (27:03):
You can't run for anything until 90 days before the election.
There's already people like lining up torun for president three years from now.
I'm like, oh, enough of this.
No, I don't want to hear anything until 90days before or else you're disqualified.
No ads,
no nothing.
Reed (27:22):
I think compressing it into a tight window like that.
Wouldn't really serve the purpose ofhaving a more educated voter pool.
I get what you're saying about, it'sridiculous how it basically never
ends, but that's, you need theseideas to marinate in order to have any
kind of filtering down to the general
(27:44):
population.
And even then, I don't, there's not awhole lot of filtering down happening.
Dave (27:50):
Fair.
I also think it's more noise than signal,
Reed (27:53):
yeah.
When do you
guys think about the people who
are very supportive of voter ID laws?
How would they
feel about mandatory voting?
Jerremy (28:02):
they I think the majority of 'em will be very pro mandatory voting.
'cause then it was like,listen, you have to vote.
And when you have to vote,you have to show an id.
Simple as that.
I think that would be their I, don't know.
I think that'd probably be their stance.
I wouldn't, I don't think I'dever sign off on mandatory
voting, at least in this country.
But again, man, I think it couldbe a relatively simplistic approach
(28:23):
where it's not that extreme.
Like you don't have to have a passport,you don't have to have a driver's license.
Like you can get a id.
Essentially for free.
I believe just like I am ahuman being that lives in this
country and I'm a citizen.
I think that Id doesn't cost very much.
Especially if you live in cities thathave incredible transportation, right?
Like big cities, New York City, youdon't need a driver's license, right?
(28:46):
And if you don't have a passport,that's fine, but library
card, like, what can you get?
Like
Dave (28:51):
costco card.
Yeah.
Jerremy (28:52):
Yeah.
What can you actually get?
That's pretty easy.
That's pretty simple.
And I think that there could be tonsof places if they said, Hey, listen,
you have to have a voter, ID got it.
Every CVS, every Walgreens, everyWalmart, every Kroger, every place
that you walk into every library,they have a free, go ahead and take
this picture and we'll give you an id.
(29:13):
That wouldn't
be that
difficult.
Alex (29:14):
We've mapped out the gerrymandering pitfalls and spotlighted tech-savvy ways
to level the field, but true change startswith what we teach the next generation.
In the final segment, Reed divesinto how education gaps fuel
these issues—and explores AI'swild role in tomorrow's politics.
You won't want to misshow it all ties together.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.