How Other Countries Draw Districts

Many posts have discussed reapportionment and redistricting -- much in the news now because of dueling gerrymanders in Texas and California.

Drew DeSilver at Pew:

So far this year, at least four states have redrawn their congressional districts with the stated goal of advantaging one party or the other in the 2026 midterms. Several others are exploring similar moves.

With this unprecedented wave of voluntary midcycle redistricting in the United States, we wondered how redistricting works in other democracies – and whether the process is as inherently political as it is in the U.S.

We analyzed how 107 democracies elect their national legislatures (mostly unicameral, or the “lower house” in bicameral systems). We found that only one other country uses the same redistricting approach as the U.S. – that is, single-member districts drawn mainly by state legislatures. That country is the Federated States of Micronesia, with a population of around 100,000, which was formerly administered by the U.S. under a United Nations trusteeship.

...

 In more than two-thirds of the democracies that heavily rely on single-member districts (29 of 42), special commissions or national election agencies have primary responsibility for drawing the lines. Lawmakers’ role, if any, is limited.

Mitt Romney: Curb Spending and Raise Taxes

Many posts have discussed federal deficits and the federal debt.

Mitt Romney at NYT:

In 2012, political ads suggested that some of my policy proposals, if enacted, would amount to pushing grandma off a cliff. Actually, my proposals were intended to prevent that very thing from happening.

Today, all of us, including our grandmas, truly are headed for a cliff: If, as projected, the Social Security Trust Fund runs out in the 2034 fiscal year, benefits will be cut by about 23 percent. The government will need trillions of dollars to make up the shortfall. When lenders refuse to loan the money unless they are paid much higher interest rates, economic calamity will almost certainly ensue. Alternatively, the government could print more money, inducing hyperinflation that devalues the national debt — along with your savings.

Typically, Democrats insist on higher taxes, and Republicans insist on lower spending. But given the magnitude of our national debt as well as the proximity of the cliff, both are necessary. DOGE took a slash-and-burn approach to budget cutting and failed spectacularly. Europe demonstrates that exorbitant taxes without spending restraint crushes economic vitality and thus speeds how fast the cliff arrives.

And on the tax front, it’s time for rich people like me to pay more.

Why DOGE Failed

Many posts have discussed federal deficits and the federal debt. Like previous efforts to reduce the deficit by cutting "waste, fraud, and abuse," DOGE was a failure.

At The Dispatch, Jessica Riedl writes that DOGE was incompetent and illegal.  Most important, its assumptions were wrong.

The promise to save trillions of dollars was ultimately doomed by the reality that most federal spending was off limits to DOGE. Roughly two-thirds of all federal spending goes to five items (Social Security, Medicare, defense, veterans’ benefits, and interest) that Trump either promised not to cut, or in the case of interest, cannot directly reduce. Attempts by DOGE to scale back Social Security customer service spending as well as assistance at veterans’ hospitals were largely abandoned in the face of a steep backlash. Even much of the remaining one-third of federal spending consists of programs that Trump voters generally support, such as infrastructure, border security, farm subsidies, and law enforcement. Ultimately, DOGE was left to slash cultural totems that benefit MAGA enemies: aid to Africa, DEI contracts, Politico subscriptions, and government employees. And while the potential savings from these expenditures look like a lot of money for a typical family, they represent budget dust in the context of a $7 trillion federal budget.

Because real waste exists in the federal budget, DOGE represents a colossal missed opportunity. After all, Washington has a moral obligation to eliminate unnecessary and wasteful spending in order to minimize the necessary cuts to priority programs. OMB estimates that $191 billion annually is lost to payment errors, which overwhelmingly take place within Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and earned income tax credit payments. Moreover, Washington is plagued with dozens of overlapping programs in areas such as education, economic development, and job training. And the Defense Department has a long record of losing tens of billions of dollars in contract cost overruns.

These examples of wasteful spending are easy to identify yet quite difficult to fix. Cleaning up such waste often involves completely overhauling countless government computer systems, developing new oversight controls (without unduly paralyzing the distribution of legitimate benefits), and coordinating with state governments that share in the administration of key programs. Overhauling these practices across hundreds of federal programs is tedious, complicated, and thankless—which is why it occurs so rarely. Lawmakers will hold hearings and press conferences blasting government waste, yet few are willing to invest significant resources into, for example, reducing Medicaid payment errors. DOGE could have focused on such activities—especially given its leaders’ background in computing technology—yet it seemed to lack the required attention span. Trump and Musk instead prioritized headline-grabbing gimmicks such as demanding a war on “millions” of fraudulent Social Security payments that did not actually exist.

Failed State: Wildfire Recovery

Many posts have discussed disasters.

 David Zahniser at LAT:

It was supposed to be a speech with a clear message of hope for survivors of the Palisades fire.

In her State of the City address in April, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called for a law exempting fire victims from construction permit fees — potentially saving them tens of thousands of dollars as they rebuild their homes.

Eight months later, the City Council is still debating how much permit relief the city can afford. Palisades residents have been left hanging, with some blaming Bass for failing to finalize a deal.
Advertisement


“This should have been pushed, and it wasn’t pushed,” said electrician Tom Doran, who has submitted plans to rebuild his three-bedroom home. “There was no motor on that boat. It was allowed to drift downstream.”

Since the Jan. 7 fire destroyed thousands of homes, Bass has been announcing recovery strategies with great fanfare, only for them to get bogged down in the details or abandoned altogether.


After two of the most destructive fires in the state’s history, The Times takes a critical look at the past year and the steps taken — or not taken — to prevent this from happening again in all future fires.
Read the stories

At one point, she called for the removal of traffic checkpoints around Pacific Palisades, only to reverse course after an outcry over public safety. She pushed tax relief for wildfire victims in Sacramento, only to abruptly pull the plug on her bill. Her relationship with Steve Soboroff, her first and only chief recovery officer, quickly unraveled over pay and other issues. He left after a 90-day stint.

Critics in and outside the Palisades say the mayor’s missteps have undermined public confidence in the rebuilding process. They have also made her more politically vulnerable as she ramps up her campaign for a second term.

Social Security, Early and Late

Many posts have discussed Social Security and Medicare.

Brian O'Connor at NYT:

The amount of money you get from Social Security each month depends on when you start receiving benefits.

If you were born after Jan. 1, 1960, your full retirement age is 67. Wait longer, and your benefit rises by 8 percent a year until age 70.

But if you claim Social Security “early,” or before your full retirement age, your payment is reduced, often drastically. Claiming at 62 results in your payment being slashed by as much as 30 percent from the full retirement age benefit. The reduction shrinks each year until your full retirement age. Claiming early also means that any income you earn above a set limit results in part of your benefits being temporarily withheld until you reach full retirement age. While there are limited options to withdraw or pause to reset your benefits, you should consider your initial choice to be permanent.

There are understandable reasons people cannot wait. Ruth Finkelstein, executive director of the Brookdale Center for Healthy Aging at Hunter College, said many people who claim benefits at 62 have been out of work or underemployed for years.

“The mass of people who ‘retire’ between 50 and 62 were pushed out of the workplace or had to leave because of someone in the family with health concerns,” Ms. Finkelstein said. “They’ve been holding on until 62.”

About 40 percent of retirees get more than half of their retirement income from Social Security, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. About 13 percent depend entirely on their benefits.

And there’s a fear factor: According to Schroders’ 2025 U.S. Retirement Survey, more than one-third of non-retired Americans say they worry that the Social Security program will run out of money. That worry is based on federal estimates that by 2033, the program trust fund can afford to pay only 77 percent of all scheduled benefits.

Celebration of Death

Previous posts have discussed war crimes.

Marine Corps veteran Phil Klay at NYT:

The Trump administration’s celebration of death brings us far from discussions of the law of armed conflict, the constitutionality of the strikes or even the Christian morality that would eventually push Augustine to formulate an early version of just-war theory. We’re in the Colosseum, one brought to us digitally so that we need not leave our homes to hear the cheers of the crowd, to watch the killing done for our entertainment and suffer the same harm that injured Alypius more than 1,600 years ago.

This wounding of the national soul is hard for me to watch. Twenty years ago, I joined the Marine Corps because I thought military service would be an honorable profession. Its honor derives from fighting prowess and adherence to a code of conduct. Military training is about character formation, with virtues taught alongside tactics. But barbaric behavior tarnishes all who wear, or once wore, the uniform, and lust for cruelty turns a noble vocation into mere thuggery. “The real evils in war,” Augustine said, “are love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power.” Such lusts, he thought, drove the pagan world’s wars. We’d be fools not to suspect that such lusts drive some of us today.

In “The City of God,” Augustine distinguishes between a people bound by common loves and those ruled by a lust for domination. A president who wants to lead a nation bound by common loves might offer up something like Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, which sorrows over war, indulges in no bombast, accepts that both sides in a conflict have sinned and declares that we must fight “with malice toward none, with charity for all.” For a nation devoted to the lust for domination, a president needs to foster a citizenry that thrills in displays of dominance and cruelty. Hence this administration’s braggadocio about death, its officials’ memes about suffering, their promises to inflict pain on America’s enemies followed by scant rationales for their own policies.

America Is Vulnerable

Many posts have analyzed how foreign influence and intelligence operations.

R.M. Schneiderman and Derek Owen at The Bulwark:

American security experts fear that growing networks of foreign spies, combined with new technology, represent an unprecedented threat—one the FBI, the primary agency tasked with thwarting hostile foreign intelligence services, may struggle to address.

“Look at what the Ukrainians are doing with drones and AI against Russia,” says national-security analyst Paul Joyal. “I know our adversaries are watching.”

Yet as these dangers have mounted, the White House has proposed slashing the FBI’s budget by more than $500 million and has shifted the bureau’s priorities away from combating spies and other forms of foreign influence. Under Director Kash Patel, the FBI has moved people and power out of the bureau’s headquarters in the J. Edgar Hoover Building in Washington and into the heartland. He reassigned nearly a quarter of all agents to a job that’s never been part of the FBI’s purview, immigration enforcement, according to data obtained from the bureau by Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat. Counterintelligence specialists with deep expertise in countries like China, Russia, and Iran are now regularly working immigration cases on a rotating basis, according to former agents who recently left the bureau. The FBI has also limited investigations of crimes like violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), allowing foreign spies greater room to maneuver.

The end result of these changes, former senior FBI officials maintain, is that America is extremely vulnerable—not just to an attack, but to an unprecedented level of foreign espionage.

“It’s a disaster,” says Robert Anderson, the head of FBI counterintelligence from 2012 to 2014. “I’m rooting for everybody because we’re all Americans, [but] Patel needs to wake up.”