Episode 375: Mapping Power: Gerrymandering, Redistricting, and the Future of US Political Power with David Daley
This episode hosts David Daley to examine the accelerating role of gerrymandering in shaping American democracy and what it reveals about the pressures facing modern electoral systems. The conversation explores his argument that democratic strain is driven not only by electoral cycles or individual political choices, but by the deliberate drawing of electoral maps that enables political actors to select their voters, weaken accountability, and reshape the incentives that underpin democratic competition. Daley argues that while gerrymandering has long been part of American politics, its contemporary form is defined by greater precision, scale, and the degree to which it is now enabled by advanced data systems and a permissive legal environment.
The episode examines how technological change has transformed redistricting into a highly sophisticated analytical process. Drawing on census data, historical voting patterns, and commercially available behavioural datasets, political operatives are now able to model electoral outcomes at the level of individual households. Advanced mapping software allows thousands of district configurations to be tested and refined before any boundaries are finalised, turning what was once a broadly geographic exercise into a data-driven process of political optimisation. This technological shift has strengthened the ability of parties to entrench advantage in an era of deep political polarisation.
A central focus of the conversation is the evolving legal framework governing redistricting in the United States. Daley highlights the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, which removed federal courts from adjudicating partisan gerrymandering claims and effectively eliminated a key national constraint on extreme map-drawing. He also points to the longer-term weakening of Voting Rights Act enforcement following Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which dismantled the federal pre-clearance system. Taken together, these rulings have shifted oversight away from federal institutions and into a fragmented landscape of state courts, constitutions, and political processes, producing uneven constraints across the country and enabling more aggressive partisan behaviour in many jurisdictions.
David Daley is a journalist, political commentator, and bestselling author of Ratf**ked, a landmark study of partisan gerrymandering in the United States first published in 2010. His work examines how changes in redistricting strategy, electoral law, and political technology have reshaped American democracy over the past two decades. Daley has written extensively on the impact of map-drawing on representation, highlighting how advances in data analytics and shifts in judicial oversight have transformed gerrymandering from a relatively blunt political practice into a precise instrument of partisan advantage.
The International Risk Podcast brings you conversations with global experts, frontline practitioners, and senior decision-makers who are shaping how we understand and respond to international risk. From geopolitical instability and organised crime to cybersecurity threats and hybrid warfare, each episode explores the forces transforming our world and what smart leaders must do to navigate them. Whether you’re a board member, policymaker, or risk professional, The International Risk Podcast delivers actionable insights, sharp analysis, and real-world stories that matter.
Dominic Bowen is the host of The International Risk Podcast and Europe’s leading expert on international risk and crisis management. As Head of Strategic Advisory and Partner at one of Europe’s leading risk management consulting firms, Dominic advises CEOs, boards, and senior executives across the continent on how to prepare for uncertainty and act with intent. He has spent decades working in war zones, advising multinational companies, and supporting Europe’s business leaders. Dominic is the go-to business advisor for leaders navigating risk, crisis, and strategy; trusted for his clarity, calmness under pressure, and ability to turn volatility into competitive advantage. Dominic equips today’s business leaders with the insight and confidence to lead through disruption and deliver sustained strategic advantage.
Subscribe for all our updates!
Transcript
00:00
David Daley
We are fundamentally alone among modern democracies around the world in allowing politicians to draw their own districts and choose their own voters. It is so precise, and the country is so polarised, that the ability to draw district lines is effectively the ability to choose winners and losers in the legislative elections that are supposed to be closest to the people themselves.
00:27
Elisa Garbil
Welcome back to the International Risk Podcast, where we discuss the latest world news and significant events that impact businesses and organisations worldwide.
00:35
Dominic Bowen
And before we start today, I have a quick favour to ask you. If you listen to The International Risk Podcast and you find it useful, please follow and subscribe wherever you are watching and listening today. In return, my commitment to you is simple that every week we will keep raising the bar with better guests, sharper questions and more practical takeaways for you that you can use to make better decisions. And if there is someone you want on the show, tell me. We read all of your comments, and we act on them. Let’s get onto the show.
01:07
Dominic Bowen
Gerrymandering. It might sound boring, but it is a big part of democratic decline and it’s critically important. Beneath the mechanics of how it occurs, there are some really consequential questions about democratic legitimacy itself. Electoral systems don’t just become destabilising because new lines are drawn. They become destabilised because political actors are deliberately engineering structural advantages that ultimately weaken representation, reduce accountability, and erode public trust in democratic institutions.
I’m Dominic Bowen, and I’m host of the International Risk Podcast, where we discuss the topics that really matter. Today’s guest has spent years investigating precisely this issue. His name is David Daley, and he’s a journalist, political commentator, and the best-selling author of Ratf**ked, which examines how partisan redistricting strategies have reshaped American politics.
His book was written back in 2010, and I think he, like many others, had hoped that would be his last word on the topic. But what we’ve seen is redistricting and ultimately gerrymandering accelerating at a huge pace over the last couple of years. So I’m really looking forward to our conversation.
Let’s jump in.
David, welcome to the International Risk Podcast.
02:22
David Daley
Thanks for having me. Looking forward to this.
02:24
Dominic Bowen
David, whereabouts in the world are you today?
02:27
David Daley
I am in Massachusetts in New England, just a couple of hours away from Boston.
02:35
Dominic Bowen
Very cool. Fantastic. It’s a cool part of the world. I’m going to have to hook you up when I’m travelling through the States next time.
Gerrymandering. How big a problem is it? Why are we even talking about it today? Should we be worried about it?
02:47
David Daley
Yes, absolutely. This is a huge problem.
When you look at the elements that have led America to this moment of a broken, structurally deformed democracy, redistricting and gerrymandering are a giant piece of the problem.
We are fundamentally alone among modern democracies around the world in allowing politicians to draw their own districts and choose their own voters. We’ve done this here for as long as we’ve had politicians.
Just down the road from me in Boston, there was a governor named Elbridge Gerry, with a hard G, who drew state senate lines around Boston in such a way as to advantage his party and disadvantage the hated Federalists.
But redistricting has really changed over the course of those 200 years.
Now, the power to draw district lines is driven by sophisticated mapping software, powerful computers, and enormous amounts of voter data. You can go up and down streets and decide who is in and who is out in a way that was only guesswork even a decade or two ago.
It is so precise, and the country is so polarised, that the ability to draw district lines is effectively the ability to choose winners and losers in the legislative elections that are supposed to be closest to the people themselves.
This has made our politics fundamentally more extreme. And as we’ve seen in the last couple of months, it has accelerated and gotten dramatically worse.
04:27
Dominic Bowen
I think this is particularly important coming into the midterm elections and who controls the House.
Right now, the Trump administration controls, some would say, the Supreme Court, certainly the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.
I think this is particularly important as we come into the midterm elections. This is something that has national implications right across the US. And, of course, that has international implications.
The Trump administration certainly controls the White House, the Senate, and the House, and potentially also the Supreme Court as well.
Who controls and wins these midterms will determine whether the Trump administration has another two years of free control or whether Trump becomes a potentially lame-duck president for his last two years.
This gerrymandering issue really heated up when Texas pushed for new maps, and this sparked a partisan response where I think there are now 10 states—Alabama, California, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and now Utah—that have all been pushing for new maps.
I understand that some states like California and New York are constrained because they’ve got independent commissions or limits.
Can you talk to us about this map arms race? How is it legal, and where are we today? Is it actually going to make a difference in the midterms?
05:28
David Daley
It very much could make a difference in the midterms. Donald Trump started this mid-decade arms race last summer when he picked up the phone and called Texas and demanded that they draw an additional five Republican seats there. The reason he did that is because Republicans only had a three-seat advantage in the US House, and they were heading into a midterm election in which, historically, the party in power tends to lose seats in Congress.
So Trump was looking at the likelihood of a Democratic US House. Texas and those additional five seats were meant to become a bulwark of sorts.
What that kicked off was, in fact, a redistricting arms race nationwide. I would divide it into two different pieces. One is a partisan gerrymandering piece, and the other is a racial gerrymandering piece. I’ll explain briefly.
So, partisan gerrymandering. There are essentially no constraints on this. The US Supreme Court, back in 2019, said that partisan gerrymandering is a political issue and is best left up to individual states and voters to try to handle and manage at that level. As a result, it essentially incentivised all of these states to go ahead and draw wildly tilted, extreme maps because they knew there would be no federal intervention.
Many states allow for mid-decade gerrymandering. They allow lawmakers to go in essentially at any time, not just every ten years after the census when this is ordinarily done.
So what Texas did was unprecedented and historic, but certainly still legal.
The other piece of this is that, as this was going on, the US Supreme Court decided another case. This was a case out of Louisiana called the Calais case. It had to do with the Voting Rights Act and protections that ensured voters of colour—Black and Latino voters especially across the South—would not be cracked and packed and sliced and diced into districts where they had no opportunity to elect members of their own choosing. The court said that itself was unconstitutional.
That allowed all of these Southern states that had previously been blocked by the Voting Rights Act from taking part in this mid-decade redistricting battle to jump in. That’s when Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Florida get involved.
Will this affect the outcome of the midterms? Nobody knows.
I imagine that the dwindling but still sufficient number of swing seats left, the unpopularity of the president, the price of gas, ongoing inflation, and the Iran war are likely to be enough to tilt those seats and the House towards the Democrats. But redistricting is going to give Republicans about an extra 10 or 11-seat cushion this year than they would have had otherwise.
08:18
Dominic Bowen
I think your point is really valid.
When we look historically, the party that holds the White House usually loses the House in the midterm elections. Certainly, Trump has made a lot of things—including the attacks on Iran and the inflationary pressure we’ve seen in the US—politically challenging.
The job numbers are a little bit better, but I think everyone still agrees that while the S&P and the NASDAQ are roaring, the cost of living for average Americans is incredibly painful. I’ve been reading some amazing statistics. One of them is that 40% of US households are in debt because of health costs. Really staggering.
It’s such a fantastic country with amazing universities and amazing companies, but a huge portion of the population is still really struggling. That has to weigh on an incumbent. That has to weigh on President Trump as we go into the November elections. But with that said, can you help us understand the map? You predicted, I think, about 10 seats—that cushion Republicans are likely to have. Talk to us about the technology. I know America is leading the world in so many regards, but how can they actually do that?
How do they know at a household-by-household level which way to draw the maps? My mind boggles as to how they could even mathematically do it. Forget the legality of it. How do you actually do gerrymandering? Help us out.
09:29
David Daley
There are unbelievable computer software mapping programs that are so precise. You look at them and it’s like you’re playing a video game. I spent time with mapmakers and they showed me how it’s done. They have so much information at their fingertips.
They’ve got all of the census data, which tells you so much about every single neighbourhood and household. They have all of the voting records from elections going back years and years—not just at the presidential level but also at the local level. That gives them lots of information about turnout and who can be expected to actually show up. There’s also all of the public data.
What kind of car do you drive? Are you driving a pickup truck or a Subaru? Because they can tell something about your politics based on the cars you drive.
What kind of licences do you have? Do you have a gun licence? Do you have a dog licence? What kind of dog?
All of this can play into a pretty good picture of who lives in every single neighbourhood at the household level. Then you can add, in most states, all kinds of private datasets. Because we’re dropping information about ourselves that can be connected to our address every single time we Google something or buy something online.
All of this means we’re scattering information about ourselves that allows us, in the hands of these mapmakers, to be sorted into districts where our vote is deeply diminished.
11:07
Dominic Bowen
Yeah, it’s incredibly interesting. I think this is perhaps a good pause for anyone who lives in a country—particularly a lot of our European audience—where they think it’s totally fine for the government to collect information.
What would they ever do with it that’s bad? We’ve had some recent conversations with people about Palantir and their access to health data in the UK and police data in the UK.
Whilst the services are potentially better, considering how governments could use this data, I think you’ve given a really great case study there. I’d love to talk about the morality of it.
Whilst the Republicans perhaps started this particular round when Trump called Texas, certainly both sides have participated in gerrymandering, at least recently. But that doesn’t make it okay. The fact that it’s legally tolerated still doesn’t make it okay.
I think most people would argue that it definitely weakens voter choice. If your house is being moved from one district to another to make your vote count more or less, it means politicians are picking their voters instead of voters picking their politicians. That’s such an interesting inversion of how democracy is supposed to work.
How do political parties justify this when they’ve really flipped the political system?
12:15
David Daley
They believe that the ends justify the means.
The story that I tell in Ratf**ked is about how Republicans recognised that this was a viable political strategy in this moment. This happens in 2010, when Republicans were on the outs in this country.
In 2008, America not only elects its first Black president in Barack Obama, but Democrats have a supermajority in the US Senate, big majorities in the House, and the smartest political observers in both parties believe this could be a generational realignment—that Republicans could be on the outs demographically for some time to come. It didn’t happen that way and it’s because Republicans recognised that the 2008 election might have been historic, but the 2010 election would be much more consequential.
America runs a census in years ending in zero. Immediately after that, every state legislative and congressional district is redrawn. What they understood was that if they could win back state legislatures—about 100 seats around the country in local races—they would have the power to draw just about half of Congress entirely on their own. They could use this new technology to lock up huge advantages.
Now, they built a Frankenstein’s monster in the process. What happens when you take districts that have been competitive, or where the two parties are relatively even, is that you move all of the political energy from the general election into the primary.
Primaries here, where parties select their nominees, tend to be held over the summer. They are exceptionally low-turnout, usually closed to independent voters, and sometimes have seven or eight candidates running. You can win a partisan primary with 20 or 22 per cent of the vote from an exceptionally small turnout. Then you coast into Congress because the other side cannot win that seat due to the way the lines have been drawn. This has pushed our politics wildly towards the extremes. It has gutted the number of competitive seats nationwide.
We only have a small number of seats that are within five percentage points. I expect that by 2026, that number could be cut in half. By 2028, as the redistricting wars continue—and because Democrats will be able to retaliate in additional states they couldn’t this time around—that number could dwindle even further. It pushes both parties towards their extremes, deeper into primaries and further away from general elections.
This is going to be a really complicated problem for us to get out from under.
15:01
Dominic Bowen
I’d like to talk a little bit more about why this problem matters, not just in America but more broadly.
But first, David, I’ll take a moment to remind our listeners that if you prefer to watch your podcasts, the International Risk Podcast is always available on YouTube.
Please go to YouTube, search for the International Risk Podcast, and subscribe and like our content. If you find it interesting, please also share it with a friend or colleague. This is really critical for helping the podcast reach a larger audience.
David, gerrymandering is often framed as a domestic political issue, and that’s how we’ve been discussing it so far. But we’re increasingly seeing democratic erosion and institutional instability in the US, and indeed globally. It’s been a global trend for the last two decades: an increasing erosion of democracy around the world.
From your perspective, why should we think about gerrymandering in the US not just as a local issue, but as something that impacts international risk much more broadly?
15:52
David Daley
I think we have radically altered the electoral incentives in this country in such a way that we’ve put people in office who could never have been elected even 10 or 15 years ago. That has had consequences for our politics. It’s had deep consequences for our foreign relations and our approach to the rest of the world.
One of my favourite examples comes from North Carolina. It’s a Southern state, but essentially a 51–49 Republican state. Democrats win statewide elections there fairly often. Republicans took control of the state legislature in 2010 and drew themselves a map on which they won about 80 per cent of the seats.
There was a swing district in the western part of the state that went back and forth between Republicans and Democrats all the time. The Democrat who held that seat, one of the more conservative Democrats in Congress, looked at the new lines in 2012 and said, “I can’t win here. I’m going to retire.” It became a safely drawn Republican seat. The race was going to be decided in the Republican primary.
A number of candidates jumped into the race. One of the big issues at the time was an early Donald Trump question about whether Barack Obama was actually American or not. The candidates were asked about it.
The frontrunner essentially said, “I’m not all that interested in that question. I think he’s probably an American.” The next candidate recognised an opportunity and said, “If I’m elected, I’m going to send Barack Obama back to Kenya or wherever it is he comes from.” That man’s name was Mark Meadows. He won the seat.
He became one of the most conservative members of Congress, pushing for government shutdowns. In Donald Trump’s first term, he became Trump’s Chief of Staff—one of the most powerful men in the world. He owed that seat to partisan gerrymandering.
We do not have a Mark Meadows, and perhaps not the kinds of policies that emerged during Trump’s first term, without partisan gerrymandering creating pathways to power for politicians who otherwise would not have had them. Maybe you don’t even have January 6 without the kinds of people making decisions who would never have had that level of power in a balanced electoral system where candidates actually need mandates and majorities rule.
18:11
Dominic Bowen
If we rewind the clock a little bit, there was Project REDMAP. I know you’ve spoken and written quite a lot about this.
This is when Republicans really targeted state legislatures so they could control redistricting after the 2010 census. And this ultimately shaped at least a decade of maps that helped Republican House dominance.
Now, the Democrats have clearly learned from it. They’re much more aware of this playbook and are adopting similar counter-strategies in the current redistricting fights. I think that’s perhaps what’s inspired this current arms race that we’re seeing today.
The critic in me says, okay, we’ve had 16 years to learn from this. The Democrats have clearly learned from it, and the Republicans are still implementing some of the same strategies today. But we’ve also had 16 years to learn that this is not democracy. This is not how we’re meant to be running our political systems.
How come the Nancy Pelosis, the Joe Bidens, the Bernie Sanderses? How come some of the more outspoken members of the Democratic Party—or indeed the Republican Party—aren’t speaking out? How come they’re not doing something to ban these mid-census redistricting and gerrymandering activities?
19:20
David Daley
It’s a great question.
I go back to a story Eric Holder told me, the former Attorney General, in the days after the 2012 election. He’s at the White House, outside the Oval Office with Barack Obama, and they don’t understand what happened in 2012. They’re looking at the election results and saying, “We thought we had a pretty good night. What happened in all of these states? Why didn’t we take back the House?” They didn’t understand REDMAP. They never saw it coming.
Democrats understand it now, and they’re fighting back in the same way. B ut I really think the answer to your question lies with the US Supreme Court. Voters were making a lot of headway on fixing this.
In the years after Donald Trump’s election in 2016, there was a lot of energy around structural reform and independent redistricting commissions. They first began appearing in Arizona and California. Then voters in Florida—more than 60 per cent of them—passed anti-gerrymandering protections into their state constitution.
In 2018, voters in Ohio, Michigan, Colorado, Missouri, and Utah moved to pass independent commissions. Not long after, Virginia followed. So this is blue states, red states, and purple states. Voters everywhere saying no to partisan gerrymandering and yes to meaningful competitive elections. Then the US Supreme Court stepped in. There had been litigation around the country, and lower federal court judges—appointed by presidents of both parties—were looking at maps drawn by both parties.
They looked at Democratic maps in Maryland and Republican maps in Ohio, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Those judges said, “We have all the information and tools we need to fix this, and we have to do it. Because if we don’t, nobody will.” The politicians can’t be trusted because they’re the ones barricading themselves into office.
The courts have to be the defenders of free and fair elections. But in the 2019 Rucho case, the US Supreme Court said no. They closed the federal courts to partisan gerrymandering claims at precisely the moment it looked like voters had this problem fixed.
That removed a key threat. It told all of these states they could go ahead and do it. So Democrats, I think, feel as though they don’t have any choice but to gerrymander every seat in every state where they can.
21:28
Dominic Bowen
I can’t help but think about Australia. In Australia, voting is compulsory. If you don’t vote, you actually get fined. So you have to vote.
Anyone who’s listened to the International Risk Podcast knows that I’m a huge advocate of democracy. I love the fierce political debates in our countries. But even in Australia, I often found it frustrating. Depending on where I was living, I was often in an extremely safe Liberal seat or an extremely safe Labor seat.
I’d have a busy weekend and think, “I’ve got to go and vote, but it’s completely pointless what my vote is because I’m in a safe Labor seat or a safe Liberal seat.” The politicians aren’t concentrating on those areas because they know the result has already been locked up, often for decades. Even I found that frustrating.
If I were living in a country like the US, where gerrymandering is so extreme and likely to become even more extreme, those frustrations would be much more acute. If we layer on top of that something like the Gini coefficient, which measures income inequality, we can see why people are concerned.
At zero, you have perfect equality, where everyone has the same income. At one, you have perfect inequality, where one person has all the income and everyone else has none. That’s almost impossible in reality.
But right now we’re seeing such a concentration of wealth and income that people are comparing it to levels last seen before the Great Depression. The concentration is extraordinary. A tiny fraction of the population controls an enormous share of the country’s wealth.
It’s absolutely phenomenal when you look at the data. When the US is experiencing these levels of inequality—and people compare today’s Gini coefficient to periods like pre-revolutionary France, even if it’s not quite that high—I have to wonder what that means for democracy.
When you add gerrymandering on top of that, what does it mean for the rule of law and political participation? What are your concerns as you look at societal fractures, democratic legitimacy, and political participation in the coming years?
23:49
David Daley
I think we are in the midst of a real challenge, and gerrymandering is a huge piece of it. But we also have all of these structural problems and inequities that have severed our politics and policy choices from the ballot box.
If you look at the policies the United States has been enacting—and the policies it has not been enacting—and compare those to opinion polling on what voters actually want, there is a massive disconnect. That disconnect can, in large part, be explained through redistricting and the other structural problems baked into our democracy. If you take redistricting as an example, we’re on the verge of becoming a nation where blue states send entirely Democratic delegations and red states send entirely Republican delegations.
We’ve seen maps like that before. But then you look at the US Senate, which gives every state two senators regardless of population.
By the end of the next decade, around 70 per cent of Americans will live in just 15 states, represented by 30 senators. The other 70 senators will represent roughly 30 per cent of the population.
It’s very difficult to maintain majority rule under those circumstances. Then you look at the US Supreme Court, which has effectively been captured by conservatives and now serves as the source of much Republican political power, particularly in election and voting-rights cases. The Court has shifted the country on questions involving regulation, the environment, guns, reproductive rights, presidential immunity, campaign finance, and the political influence of wealthy elites.
Much of that springs from the Court. Then consider what happens after the next census. We’ll not only redraw districts, but also reapportion House seats based on population shifts.
California, New York, Illinois, and several other large blue states are expected to lose seats. Those seats will move to more conservative states. And what moves with them are Electoral College votes.
As a result, it will be more difficult for a Democratic candidate to win the presidency in 2032 than it is in 2028, and more difficult than it was earlier this decade. When you add all of this together, there are a lot of flashing warning lights.
We need to be thinking seriously about structural reforms. If Democrats have an opportunity to pass them—and I imagine these reforms would likely have to come from Democrats rather than Republicans—they would need to emerge very quickly, perhaps in the first hundred days of a Democratic trifecta beginning in 2029.
If Democrats cannot make that work, I think all bets are off. The kind of democracy we have, who holds power, and whether that power can be taken away even by majorities of Americans may look very different in the future.
26:57
Dominic Bowen
I’d like to pick that up because it’s not just America. The United States has deep polarisation, eroding trust in elections, courts, and, of course, the media. We’ve had discussions about “fake news” for what must now be 12 years. In the UK, there’s been massive polarisation over Brexit. Immigration is increasingly a concern. Incidents involving asylum seekers and refugees have further intensified that debate.
In France, we have extremely strong populist movements. The far right looks like it could win the next election, and nearly won the last one. The far left also remains a significant force. Italy has a longstanding populist government.
The United States has always positioned itself as a defender of democratic norms, as a country with electoral legitimacy and the authority to intervene in international affairs because it is seen as a standard-bearer for democracy. But with all that said, and noting where we are today, what is your prediction? What is the world going to look like? Where do you think we’re going to be in 2030?
28:00
David Daley
I think there is an appetite for big structural reform in the United States that I haven’t seen in my lifetime. When you look at the calls to reform Congress, reform the Supreme Court, get money out of politics, and create more proportional representation, we’re seeing all of this.
Now, it’s very difficult to achieve, and there’s a lot that would have to be overcome. But I think what’s really important is that we do the work of reimagining democracy and reimagining these institutions.
Part of the reason we’re in this mess is because these institutions have failed. It’s not enough for Democrats to say, “We’re going to restore democracy to the way it was before,” because that wasn’t good enough. It wasn’t good enough for many of the Americans we’ve been discussing who are concerned about income inequality, healthcare, AI, the job market, and a range of other issues. There are a lot of anxieties and fears that need to be addressed. Those concerns weren’t being adequately addressed by institutions, political parties, or the news media in the years leading up to this moment.
Populist movements around the world haven’t come from nowhere. They’ve been born out of frustration and institutional failure in many ways.
So if Democrats want to take power back and fix this, I think they have to build institutions that actually respond to the real needs of people. Then they need to take those needs seriously and do the work required to solve those problems.
29:29
Dominic Bowen
And one question that we ask all guests on the International Risk Podcast, David, is when you look around the world, what are the international risks that concern you the most?
29:38
David Daley
I think we live in a world in which we’ve lost trust in truth itself.
When you look at declining faith in the news media, the rise of partisan media, and the growth of information silos, we can’t even agree on basic facts anymore. That’s a huge loss because we have big problems to solve.
When we can’t come together and have conversations about those problems because we’re all getting information from different sources—some trustworthy and some not—it becomes nearly impossible to have the kind of civic conversation that actually strengthens democracy.
30:21
Dominic Bowen
Well, thanks very much for explaining that, David and thank you very much for coming on the International Risk Podcast.
30:26
David Daley
Such a pleasure. I really enjoyed the conversation. Thank you for having me.
30:30
Dominic Bowen
Well, that was a great conversation with David Daley. I really appreciated hearing his thoughts on gerrymandering, democracy, and, of course, international risk. Today’s podcast was produced and coordinated by Ella Burden.
I’m Dominic Bowen, host of the International Risk Podcast. Thanks very much for listening. We’ll speak again in the next few days.
