146. Is There a Fair Way to Divide Us?

It's Stock Up September at Whole Foods Market.

Find sales on supplements to power up for busy weeks.

Plus, pack your pantry with pasta, sauce, and more everyday essentials.

Enjoy quick breakfasts for less with $365 by Whole Foods Market seasonal coffee and oatmeal.

Grab ready-to-heat meals that are perfect for the office and save on versatile no antibiotics ever chicken breasts.

Stock up now at Whole Foods Market, in-store and online.

A rich life isn't a straight line to a destination on the horizon.

Sometimes it takes an unexpected turn with detours, new possibilities,

and even another passenger, who are three.

And with 100 years of navigating ups and downs, you can count on Edward Jones to help guide you through it all because life is a winding path made rich by the people you walk it with.

Let's find your rich together.

Edward Jones, member SIPC.

At first glance, my guest today, Moon Doochin, looks like a fairly typical example of a successful professor of mathematics.

She teaches at Cornell University, having built her academic reputation by working on incredibly abstract ideas in geometry.

But Moon has done something way beyond the typical.

She managed to find a very practical application for her abstract ideas in the area of political gerrymandering.

And since then, she's worked on the ground with state commissions and courts to transform the way redistricting is done.

We don't have a baseline.

We don't know what normal districting looks like.

And what the math folks have brought to the table is better and better methods for sampling from that huge, unthinkable wilderness of plans.

Welcome to People I Mostly Admire with Steve Levitt.

Moon Dujan first saw the unexpected connection between her geometric research and gerrymandering when she taught an undergraduate course on the mathematics of social choice and voting.

This is the kind of class assignment every professor tries to avoid.

It's so much work to prepare a new course in an area you aren't already an expert in, and professors tend to like to teach upper-level courses because there are fewer students and the material is more challenging.

I started our conversation by asking her why she let herself be drafted to teach an entry-level course far from her area of expertise.

Actually, I wasn't so much drafted as I drafted myself.

At the time, I was trying to work my way through the entire undergrad curriculum and teach all of our classes.

Why would you want to go through all of the undergraduate classes?

That sounds like the opposite of what most faculty are trying to do.

It is the opposite.

But I love learning things through teaching them.

And I love stretching across the math curriculum.

This was a class that was really being presented for non-majors.

And so this was a really popular way for people who didn't like math much to take a math requirement.

What surprised me is that it was sneaky deep.

It actually didn't even seem easy at the first level of approach.

As a little add-on at the end of the class, I had gone through all these theorems about how voting works and doesn't work, and then wanted to pivot towards something that looks a little bit more like the American system.

And by the way, I was teaching this class in 2016 when there was a really weird primary going on when this guy named Trump was getting a bunch of votes as he rolled through primary states.

And so there was a lot happening, and I wanted to try to connect the theory to some of what was actually going on.

So for that, you really need the story of redistricting, which is when you take the country or take a state or take a county or any kind of jurisdiction and you divide it up into pieces, each of them to conduct an election.

And then when you have to redo it regularly, you're redistricting.

And in the U.S., a census is done every 10 years, and then we reallocate seats across states.

That's when we see the most redistricting because Massachusetts might gain or lose a seat and California gains or loses two or three.

So you have to redistrict in order to do the next election.

Aaron Trevor Bowie- Yeah, funnily enough, that rule that you have to redistrict when the new population numbers come out, that only comes from the 1960s.

And before that, states that didn't see their apportionment change, you know, if their number of districts stayed the same, they just left their districts in place, even though people were moving and population was shifting.

But since the 60s, the Supreme Court steps in and says, no, every time there's a census, you need to rebalance.

So as you say, that's when most of the redistricting scrum happens.

Aaron Powell, did you see right away that the very difficult math tools that you were developing in your own research, that they had a very natural application to the question of gerrymandering?

No.

It took quite a while to see how my math was going to bear on redistricting.

So the order that this goes in my life is I teach this class.

I want to put a little gerrymandering content at the end.

I look for what I'm sure is going to be the well-solved literature.

And then I find that there's still a lot to be done.

And then gradually I realize that my math toolkit can help.

So I come to this as a research problem in this funny, circuitous way.

But pretty much as soon as I did, I realized that there's some real geometry in this, which has to do with distributions.

So you have people unevenly distributed over the territory of the U.S.

and the territory of each state.

And then within the people as a whole, you have subgroups that are really important for political representation.

And some of them are more concentrated and some of them are more spread out.

Okay, so gerrymandering, which has got to be perhaps one of the weirdest words in the English language, means what?

Great word, yeah.

That's just basically abusive redistricting.

So the idea is you have the power to draw the lines, and you use that power to advance some agenda.

Notice that's slippery, right?

That just basically says, I don't like the way you redistrict it.

It's really quite hard to specify exactly what's meant by that.

I would say the broadest consensus is that if you're in control control of drawing the lines for some seats, it's a representation, then gerrymandering is where you use it to get more seats for one kind of representative at the expense of others.

Okay.

And the name, can you give us a little history lesson?

It comes from Elbridge Jerry, right?

Yeah, who said his name Gary, actually, as far as I understand.

I just moved here to Ithaca from Cambridge, where everything's still named for the guy.

Because he was a governor of Massachusetts at one point.

He was indeed.

At the time of the 1810 census.

And he approved a set of lines for the state senate map, which had a district on the North Shore that people didn't like.

And it was thought to be a partisan gerrymander where one side was the Democratic-Republicans and the other side was the Federalists.

By putting together towns in this configuration, he was accused of putting a thumb on the scale.

A political cartoon, a pretty famous one, like a woodcut political cartoon, was created in the years after that census, showing that district with artistically rendered wings and teeth and claws.

And it was called Gary's salamander, and that's what became gerrymander.

What's weird is that I've seen that picture, and it looks like a dragon because salamanders have no wings.

It's interesting they called it a salamander.

Maybe just because gerrydragon doesn't have the ring to it.

Not quite sure.

But the other thing that's really striking when you look at it today is that it looks just fine.

It's actually whole towns.

It doesn't even cut below the town line, let alone cut into precincts and cut into neighborhoods.

It doesn't really look so bad from a modern perspective.

But the kind of polemical language that accompanied the cartoon was all about skipping over some population to grab other population.

And a lot of its snakey shape, it's up there at the northern border of the state.

So it seemed unnatural with respect to how it was dividing up the North Shore towns.

Aaron Powell, now, just to be clear, the potential value to a political party of controlling the redistricting process, it can be huge.

So let's just take a simple example.

Let's say there's a state that is 59% Democrat and 41% Republican.

And let's say it has 10 congressional seats.

If the only

constraint on how districts are constructed is that each district has to have the same number of voters.

And if I'm doing the math right, you can come up with a redistricting plan that gives that Republican minority anywhere between zero representatives out of 10 and up to eight representatives out of 10.

Can you explain how that works?

Yeah, first, I agree with your math.

But yeah, the reason is we're using a really like sharp-edged rule, which is just whoever has the most votes.

Aaron Powell, Trevor Barrett, that's our electoral rule, is that small differences in vote shares lead to very stark differences in outcomes.

One person wins, it's winner-take-all, essentially.

Exactly, binary outcomes.

So sometimes that's called first-past-the-post.

And so to control a district, you just need half of its votes plus one in this kind of simplified two-party scenario.

And so you can control eight districts by just having, in each of those, you just need 50% of the district plus one.

Just a hair over 40% of the votes can control eight districts.

Aaron Trevor Barrett, the nomenclature that political scientists use, I think, is packing and cracking.

So in this case, you pack all of the Democrats into two completely Democratic districts, and then that leaves eight districts which are almost even but tip just in favor of the Republicans.

Exactly.

That's packing and cracking.

Economists would think of this as a notion of efficiency.

And so if you're in charge, you give yourself really efficient wins, and then you stuff a bunch of wasted votes of the out-group into a few districts.

You've packed them into some districts that you're willing to lose, and then you've cracked them by splitting them across the districts that you want to win.

I should mention, though, that packing and cracking are the most common, but there are also notions of stacking, and there's even fracking.

The inimitable political scientist Bernie Groffman came up with that one.

Okay, so our simple example, the only constraint we put on was that the districts were equal sized.

But in the real world, what are the rules around redistricting?

Oh, it's so complicated.

One of the things you learn when you start doing the actual kind of consulting work is that the rules, they're not terribly clear and certainly they don't come with a priority order in most cases.

But I would say there's a big six of what the rules tend to be because they vary state to state.

The only two that are universal around the U.S.

are population balance and some sort of web of rules around racial fairness.

There's the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that's still federal law while we have it because the the Supreme Court definitely has sites on that law.

And there's also racial fairness jurisprudence that comes out of the 14th Amendment, which is equal protection.

The idea that race shouldn't predominate when you draw districts.

And then there are four more, briefly.

Two of those are mathy-sounding.

One of them is that the districts should be connected pieces, one piece, which in redistricting language is called contiguous.

Another is what's called compactness, which means you want the districts to have nice shapes.

You could imagine when I started thinking about this, because I'm a geometer by training, that's where I thought, oh, hey, maybe my toolkit can be useful here, thinking about what do we really mean when we want districts to have nice shapes.

I imagine we'll come back to that.

So that leaves two more rules of the big six.

And one of them is respect for what's called political boundaries.

That sounds like it might be about partisanship, but here, all that means is that for units like counties,

cities, towns, sometimes precincts, which are thought of as political boundaries, you want to try to keep those whole.

And you don't want to split any more counties than you reasonably have to.

And then the last one, which is maybe the vaguest of all, but I think increasingly interesting for a lot of different people, is called communities of interest.

So that one's the idea that when people have a shared historical or cultural or economic interest, that you want to identify the communities that correspond to that shared interest and take them into account when you draw the lines.

And so you can see how slippery that is to operationalize.

Now, what's notably missing in those rules around redistricting is any strict notion of outcomes.

For instance, there could be a rule that says if one party received 40% of the votes in the last election cycle, then district lines should be drawn so that the party is expected to win approximately 41% of the congressional seats in that state.

But that's totally absent.

States have the ability to add rules about partisan fairness, and quite a few do have something in their either constitution or just in statute or just in the state guidelines that alludes to partisan fairness.

But they're usually pretty vague.

Michigan got something into the state constitution after a 2018 vote that says you shouldn't unduly favor a political party.

So that's directionally what you're talking about, but it's a lot less precise.

There's only one state that I'm aware of that does something like you just said, and that's Ohio.

And that one actually says that you should try for proportionality when you draw your districts.

And that does mean what you just said, that 40% of the votes should get 40% of the seats.

The reason that's a little sad is that even though that's now in Ohio's Constitution, the people in charge of the line drawing process were extremely partisan actors in this cycle in Ohio, and they just totally ignored that, even though it's sitting right there in the Constitution.

It seems intuitively that proportionality would be the fair way to do things.

In countries like Germany, that's more or less how they do it in parliamentary elections because they have proportional assignment of seats.

Aaron Powell,

not exactly.

So Germany has a really interesting system.

But you're right that most of the world has proportional assignment of seats.

That's called party list voting.

It's used in about half the countries of the world, if I remember right.

And party list says you vote for a party, and then seats are filled in proportion to those votes.

But the parties maintain a list list of who they want to seat.

That's why it's called a party list.

And just how deep they go in the list depends on their vote support.

So that's very frequently used.

Germany actually has a super interesting wrinkle on top of that, which is, first of all, there are single-member districts and they do conduct first-past-the-post elections.

But then there are additional seats that are used to bring those numbers into proportion with people's party preference.

So this is sometimes called a mixed-member system, where some of the members are elected out of districts and others come off a party list.

Aaron Ross Powell, and the attractiveness of what we do as opposed to a party list is that you have this real geographic component.

And so you represent a particular set of people.

Do you see that as a benefit of our system or am I missing the boat?

No, yeah, it's actually really interesting.

So I would flip it around and say the downside of party list is parties in some sense, right?

It gives a lot of control to the parties.

And if you want to see, for instance, diversity in your legislative body, then you have to trust the parties to put it on their list.

So many countries around the world use party list, but have a kind of so-called gentleman's agreement by which the parties agree to have some kind of diversity for like relevant minorities in that country.

I think that really highlights a flaw of party list.

If you have to have handshake agreements to make your list diverse.

The idea of voting directly for people is probably just generally more attractive in the American way of thinking about our political representation.

But as you say, the case for it partly has to do with the salience of geography.

Go back to the Federalist Papers and you'll see the argument that these constituencies around the country are going to have so-called competing local jealousies.

And I take that to mean you have shrimpers in Louisiana, you have loggers in Oregon, you have various kinds of local interests, and those interests might be at the sub-state level, and you want some representation for geographically correlated local interests, neighborhoods, and types of people.

That's going to be the argument.

Yeah.

So the first place where some really interesting math starts to creep in here is what one might call the segregation paradox.

In general, we think of residential segregation of racial minorities as being bad, a sign of some kind of social problems like discrimination.

But in the context context of political representation, it's actually good in a sense.

Could you explain that?

Aaron Powell, Jr.: First, let me just point out that there's some conventional wisdom here that's exactly the opposite of what you just said.

But I'm going to come back to it and say you're actually more right than the conventional wisdom.

What is said, the conventional wisdom, is that Democrats may be at a disadvantage in redistricting even before anyone starts gerrymandering.

They may be at a natural geographical disadvantage because of where they live.

And so the logic goes that Democrats pack themselves into cities where they sit really densely.

And since they're packing themselves into cities, they end up packed into districts just naturally.

Actually, there's a wonderful legal scholar named Pam Carlin who's done lots of work on redistricting, among many other things.

And I once heard her at a conference say, it's because Democrats like to huddle for warmth in the cities that they end up packed into districts.

And so what I would say to that, what I did say to her at the time, is, isn't this just confusing these two different meanings of the word pack?

One has to do with density and the other has to do with inefficiency.

And I don't see that they necessarily have to go together.

I've spent years trying to tease that out.

What I end up thinking is pretty much in line with what you said at the beginning, which is that if you cluster and decluster a minority population, and then you try to draw lots of districts and see if they're advantageously arranged, if that minority population is advantageously arranged for representation, you'll find by far the best representations as they get very clustered.

It goes against the conventional wisdom that packing together, that dense arrangements are bad.

Aaron Powell, I think the intuition I have for it is, let's say you're a minority, take the same silly number I've been using the whole time, 41%.

Let's say you're a minority in a state and

you're uniformly spread over the entire state.

You're 41% of the electorate everywhere.

Then it's really easy to just draw lines around every geography and you get exactly 41% of the vote in every district and you lose every single one.

I think that's the intuition I have for why if you're spread too uniformly and you're a minority, you're destined to do poorly.

Yeah, that's dead on.

So I have a paper where we look at this.

And having looked at all 50 states, there's one state that stands out by far among all the 50 as having the most uniform political geography.

And I think it's no surprise.

Like, I wouldn't have guessed which state it is, but it's Massachusetts.

You think of Massachusetts as such a blue state, but actually, Republicans are always clearing 30% of the vote in statewide contests.

And so, what that means is, say, a third of the voters statewide prefer Republicans, but that's also true at every smaller level, right?

So, if that's true in the counties and the towns, maybe it's even true in the households, then what that actually means is that it doesn't matter how you draw the lines.

You're always going to get an all-Democratic delegation.

And sure enough, if you look, I think 1992 was the last time a Republican was elected to Congress out of Massachusetts.

We love our Republican governors in Massachusetts,

but for Congress, you're seeing a sweep.

These days, it's 9-0 every two years.

Part of the reason is the political geography.

After this short break, Moon Dootin and I return to talk about why it's so hard to create redistricting plans that are fair.

People I Mostly Admire is sponsored by LinkedIn.

As a small business owner, your business is always on your mind.

So when you're hiring, you need a partner who's just as dedicated as you are.

That hiring partner is LinkedIn Jobs.

When you clock out, LinkedIn clocks in.

They make it easy to post your job for free, share it with your network, and get qualified candidates that you can manage all in one place.

And LinkedIn's new feature can help you write job descriptions and then quickly get your job in front of the right people with deep candidate insights.

You can post your job for free or choose to promote it.

Promoted jobs attract three times more qualified applicants.

At the end of the day, the most important thing to your small business is the quality of candidates.

And with LinkedIn, you can feel confident that you're getting the best.

Post your job for free at linkedin.com slash admire.

That's linkedin.com slash admire to post your job for free.

Terms and conditions apply.

People I Mostly Admire is sponsored by Mint Mobile.

From new shoes to new supplies, the back-to-school season comes with a lot of expenses.

Your wireless bill shouldn't be one of them.

Ditch overpriced wireless and switch to Mint Mobile.

where you can get the coverage and speed you're used to, but for way less money.

For a limited time, Mint Mobile is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for 15 bucks a month.

Because this school year, your budget deserves a break.

Get this new customer offer and your three-month unlimited wireless plan for just $15 a month at mintmobile.com/slash admire.

That's mintmobile.com/slash admire.

Upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month.

Limited time, new customer offer for first three months only.

Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan.

Taxes and fees extra?

See Mint Mobile for details.

Honey, do not make plans Saturday, September 13th, okay?

Why, what's happening?

The Walmart Wellness Event.

Flu shots, health screenings, free samples from those brands you like.

All that at Walmart.

We can just walk right in.

No appointment needed.

Who knew we could cover our health and wellness needs at Walmart?

Check the calendar Saturday, September 13th.

Walmart Wellness Event.

You knew.

I knew.

Check Check in on your health at the same place you already shop.

Visit Walmart Saturday, September 13th for our semi-annual wellness event.

Flu shots subject to availability and applicable state law.

Age restrictions apply.

Free samples while supplies last.

Okay, I could see a listener thinking at this point, I don't really get why we're going to need Moon's fancy math.

Why is choosing fair districts such a hard problem?

What is it about the problem that makes it a really hard one and one that requires the cutting-edge math that you do?

Aaron Powell, to answer that, partly I'd go back to this fantastic comment made by Justice Samuel Alito in one of the redistricting cases that faced the Supreme Court recently.

I think this was in Rucho, the partisan case out of North Carolina.

And what happened there was Alito was musing about how many possible districting plans there are to compare.

And he said, I don't know, maybe you have 100, maybe you have 25.

I I guess there's probably thousands, he said.

And all the math people like me fell out of our seats because, yeah, there are thousands.

Actually, probably the right scale to think about is a Google one with 100 zeros.

That's probably how many districting plans there are to compare Justice Alito.

We laid out before the rules about what a plan had to have, and there were a handful of them.

But states are big.

There are a lot of people.

There are a lot of cities and counties within them.

And what you're saying is as you start to think about the explosiveness of the number of possible combinations, it goes to infinity really, really fast.

So, in other words, the possibility space is just too big for humans to think about in any sensible way.

Aaron Powell, that's definitely true.

We're talking for sure more than the number of particles in the galaxy.

But it's not just that it's big, because we can handle big spaces depending on how they're structured.

It's that it's big and very hard to explore.

Back in the 1960s, you start to see articles coming out both in law reviews and in technical journals that are like, hey, computers are pretty soon going to be able to just search all the districting plans.

This just turns out not to be true.

It's not only that there are so many, but there's no good recursive structure in there.

So that's a mathematical term.

But what I mean is, if you know something about districting a a smaller state, that doesn't help you districting a bigger one.

The big problem doesn't break down into easier ones in a nice way so that you can approach it systematically.

So this is where people like me start to get involved because the court's been saying, how are we supposed to know what extreme gerrymandering looks like if we don't know what redistricting looks like without gerrymandering?

We don't have a baseline.

And what the math folks have brought to the table is better and better methods for sampling from that huge, unthinkable wilderness of plans.

And so now we have pretty good ways to get what you'd call a representative sample.

Like with polling, once you have a representative sample of the electorate, you don't have to ask that many people in order to get a sense of what's going to happen.

And this is the same thing.

Once you can representatively sample from plans, then you can take a plan drawn by the legislature and see how it looks compared to those.

And that gives you a sense of whether someone was trying to take undue advantage or whether it's just where people live that caused the chips to fall where they did.

Aaron Powell, Jr.: So, what you're saying is that in this nearly infinite set of possible districting plans,

there's no easy notion of being able to draw a sample and say that's representative because we can't identify the set itself.

And so we have no way to go back and say, well, how do I know it's representative when I don't see all the members of the set?

Is that the gist of what you're talking about?

Yep, that's the gist.

So we needed some new ideas collectively as a research community for what it would mean to get a representative sample.

Okay, so I know this is hard.

It's hard mouth, but can you take a shot at explaining what it is you've been working on that helps us get to this representative set?

Yeah, when I started working on this, circa 2016, there were algorithms that would run and give you a districting plan, and those algorithms used randomness in their construction process.

And so people would say, oh, here's a random sample, and then treat them as though they were independent.

But the problem was with the methods that were available at the time, you didn't really know why it was more likely to see certain kinds of plans than other kinds of plans.

I like to lean on this analogy to polling an election, where you're like, okay, I got this number of men and this number of women who responded, but I'm probably going to try to correct those shares to look like the likely electorate.

I'll try to reweight them to understand how many men versus women do I expect to show up on election day.

And so the same thing with plans.

If I'm getting a lot of plans that have long, snaky districts, and I'm wondering, is that typical?

You want to be able to understand why certain things are coming up more than others so that you know whether you've got something that looks like the full body of plausible plans that meet all the rules.

So let me tell you just the littlest bit about the math that my research group developed to work on this.

There's this concept in math of what's called a Markov chain.

You start with an object, in this case, a districting plan, and then you change to another and you change to another.

And you can visualize this as a walk through the universe of possibilities.

Aaron Ross Powell, so whatever you had last time, you make one change to it, essentially.

You make one change.

That's right.

And then you change it the next time and you keep on going.

Yeah.

And that's a little step.

in this big universe, right?

And so maybe in the case of, say, Massachusetts, Massachusetts has 2,000 precincts.

So a natural thing to do would be to start with a plan, grab one of those 2,000 precincts, and just move it from one district to a different one.

That's a move.

It's a simple move.

And now what if I do that a billion times?

Then I might end up with something that looks totally different than what I started with.

And looking different is nice, but you want some mathematical control.

So when we started getting involved, we realized, actually, there's another good analogy that I think will really help us think about this.

Imagine you want to shuffle a deck of cards.

You could certainly take a card off the top and put it somewhere random in the middle, and you get a new order.

Do that a lot.

Eventually, it's going to get shuffled.

But that is pretty inefficient, just changing that little one thing at a time.

So my research group came along and came up with something that's analogous to the riffle shuffle, where you split the deck in half and just interleave all the cards in a random way.

So we came up with a big way to change plans one step at a time.

And I can actually say what it is.

It's not that hard to picture.

What we said is, why don't you fuse two districts together that are neighbors and then draw a boundary in a totally new way.

So you see how instead of changing just one little particle, that takes two districts and fundamentally reconfigures them and then do that a lot.

And so we were able to implement that to run really fast and to prove some theorems and get some mathematical control of what happens after a long time and why you're more likely to see certain kinds of things than others.

Aaron Powell, Jr.: Using your methods, you come up with a distribution of what randomly generated redistricting plans would look like in terms of expected seats won by each party.

And then when you're brought in as a consultant, you compare that to the actual plan that has been proposed.

And if that actual plan is an extreme outlier, then it's likely a case of gerrymandering.

Is that the gist of it?

So what I just described where you're creating this random sample, let's call that the ensemble method because the collection of plans is called an ensemble of alternatives.

And what you just said, outlier analysis is one thing you can use that for.

And courts have definitely found that to be pretty persuasive.

If I can show that you're way in the skinny part of the bell curve, then you're an outlier with respect to the distribution.

So that's suggestive of some intent to gerrymander.

So that's definitely one application.

But there's others.

Let me point to the litigation that happened in Pennsylvania in the last few years as a way that ensembles were used in a slightly different way that I thought was very interesting.

In that case, the Republican-controlled legislature at the time had put out a plan that actually looked pretty typical of blind plans.

I'm going to use blind as a synonym for neutral.

That doesn't mean it's fair.

Because of where people live in Pennsylvania, with Philadelphia all the way in the corner of the state and Pittsburgh on the other side, the geography was such that that blind draw of plans was really quite favorable to Republicans, give a few extra seats to Republicans relative to proportionality.

In computer science, fairness might have to do with some axiom of giving things out in proportion, perhaps, to the distribution of other attributes.

Fairness might be an aspirational target, and a neutral process isn't always fair.

Okay.

And in Pennsylvania, blind districting plans end up not being fair in that sense because you've got all the Democrats packed in the corner of the state in Philadelphia.

Aaron Powell, Jr.: Yeah.

I'm pretty used to kind of code switching between talking to academic and non-academic audiences.

But I was an expert in this Pennsylvania case, and I remember when I said in the courtroom that blind isn't always fair, laughs went up around the courtroom.

They thought I was joking

because the people in the room thought what could be fairer than being blind.

You really have to get to this notion that something that's facially equal between groups might not be allocating resources in a way that's fair by other kinds of measurements.

Yeah, that makes sense.

So bracketing that, just to finish the Pennsylvania story, exactly what you said is the argument that was made by several plaintiffs' groups, which was, yeah, the blind process would give you a certain range of representation, but in Pennsylvania, you have a free and fair elections clause.

And so shouldn't you be trying to do better than blind?

If it's a 50-50 state, shouldn't we be trying to find a map that would reflect that in our representation?

One of the attorneys in the case actually used the analogy, a drunken monkey can eventually type Hamlet.

There's this kind of old saw about how randomly typing, you'll eventually type Hamlet.

But why should we outsource our redistricting to a drunken monkey?

I thought that was right on the nose.

And so the question that was put to the court was, if you can select a plan that's more proportional without any cost to all the other principles, then shouldn't you do that?

The plan that was being proposed was a Republican plan.

In terms of outlier analysis, how skewed was the plan?

It wasn't skewed at all.

It was right in the middle of the distribution.

And actually, great story.

piano teacher named Amanda Holt drew these plans with a high priority on keeping cities whole and not using any partisan data.

And I totally take her at her word that she did that because if you stack those up against the bell curve of a random sample, they fall right where the meat of the distribution is.

So they look just as though they were made without partisan data.

And because

the political geography confers an advantage to Republicans, the legislature decided it was strategic to take one of Holt's actual plans, tweak it a little, and use it as theirs.

I thought that was pretty crafty PR, was to say, this is just an enterprising local piano teacher drew this plan.

There's no gerrymandering here.

My sense is that before you brought your mathematical approach, a lot of the discussion around gerrymandering was based on visual appearance of the districts, crazy-looking districts like Goofy Kicking Down a Duck, which I thought when I heard about it was just someone being pejorative.

But then I actually looked it up on Google.

That district really does look like Goofy kicking down luck.

It's so crazy.

Yeah, that's a classic, crazy-looking district.

It's Pennsylvania's seventh.

If you look at the district, you can not only see like goofy's ears and outstretched foot.

You remember how districts have to be connected.

They can't be multiple pieces.

This particular district was so barely connected.

At one place, it was connected just by the width of a hospital.

And in another place, a seafood restaurant.

You can't make this up.

But what your models have made really clear is that districting plans that look reasonable can still be completely unfair, right?

Absolutely, yeah.

I think that was another lesson for me because initially I thought, oh, if we can just restrict the shapes to not be so wild, then at least you won't have as much room to gerrymander.

But over and over again, I've seen that when a legislature is under pressure to make their districts look nice, they can gerrymander just as much.

The shapes just don't turn out to be as constraining as I expected when I got started.

So it's my impression that you've limited your role thus far to evaluating redistricting plans that have been proposed.

But it seems like there's a real business opportunity for you to be the one who designs the redistricting plans in the first place.

And I could imagine a sliding scale price-wise.

So you might charge, say, $500,000 to come up with a plan that was totally fair.

But if the majority party in a state wants a plan that's heavily skewed in their favor, but looks fair and reasonable, maybe you'd charge them $5 million instead of $500,000.

And I suspect you'd have a lot of customers willing to pay you the $5 million.

So have you thought about that?

I love that you're setting up my next business venture.

Yeah.

Well, actually, I have been involved in helping line drawers.

I just want to say that first, because litigation is supposed to be the guardrail after something untoward has occurred.

But I've tried to make myself available for independent commissions and even for legislatures.

And so, for instance, in Michigan, there's a new independent commission, and the Department of State brought in my lab to help them collect communities of interest testimony from around the state and turn that into something that the commission could take into account.

In Arizona, there's an independent commission, and in their guidelines, plans are required to strive for for competitiveness.

And so they brought us in to help advise them on what would be best practices for trying to design a competitive plan.

That's work that I really like.

I like thinking about not just the math to catch you when you're doing something wrong, but I like thinking about the better processes and process design for doing something right.

I also have given some thought to what a good rule might look like.

I was one of the people contributing ideas to the partisan gerrymandering language in what became the Freedom to Vote Act.

That was this large bill with a lot of different election-related provisions, and one of them was a rule for partisan gerrymandering, a test.

This test could help you think about when you're doing a good job, not just flag the worst.

And I have a published paper since that with Gabe Schoenbach where we explore this.

And the question was, could you hope to redistrict for

some positive goal like proportionality or some political scientists favor the efficiency gap or other kinds of standards that tell you what it looks like to do a good job in terms of partisan balance?

And what Gabe and I found was pretty interesting.

In most states that we looked at, if you take a random sample of plans and you draw them blind or neutral, you can actually find within that sample a number of plans that hit the benchmark of proportionality enough of the time.

So the standard in the Freedom to Vote Act is, let's just look at the two most recent presidential elections, the two most recent Senate elections.

So that's four elections.

And let's see what would happen if you tried to be close to proportional three out of four times.

Let's take that as a test.

And to my pleasant surprise, we found that even in the states that are hot spots for gerrymandering, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, an adequate supply of blindly drawn plans were passing this test.

There was a cool project that came out a few years ago from 538, which was called the Atlas of Redistricting, where Dave Wasserman, who's a pundit who thinks about politics and in particular thinks about gerrymandering, he had hand-drawn plans in every state, God bless Dave Wasserman, which tried to be Democratic gerrymanders, tried to be Republican gerrymanders, and tried to be as proportional as possible.

He had different alternatives for different goals.

And so we looked at his plans and asked, would they pass this test?

And he did a great job.

All of this to say, you'd like to design a process where it's possible for people to pass the test without like sophisticated consultants.

You want a citizens redistricting commission that spent some time training and learning how everything works to be able to draw a good plan.

And what we found was all kinds of evidence that if you draw a plan that does a good job at being proportional on past elections, it's probably going to keep doing a good job being proportional on future elections.

So I thought that was really encouraging.

One change in process would be to move to a different voting system.

Do you have views on what voting system makes the most sense these days?

Do I have views?

I always have views.

There are all kinds of reasons to say, even amidst good news news that it's possible to do a better job with our redistricting, we should also consider doing less redistricting.

And one reason is that the direction that courts are going in is pretty clear.

That the careful design of districts, especially if you're trying to design for sort of racial fairness goals, is more and more frowned on.

You shouldn't be doing kind of race-conscious anything by the lights of this Supreme Court, even if it's to remediate past racial discrimination.

And one thing that these methods of constructing all these districting plans that we've been talking about have made clear is that while blind redistricting may be bad for Democrats on average, just based on where people live, it's devastating for racial and language minorities around the country.

The actual spatial distribution is such that you'd be shutting out a lot of groups of the opportunity to elect candidates of choice.

And so when you see that, you start to think maybe this system,

coupled with the preference for drawing blind, maybe the system is a problem.

And I've spent a bunch of time in the last few years building up math modeling techniques to compare systems.

So for instance, to hold the preferences constant and change the voting rule.

So maybe change from party list to first pass the post to some kind of ranked choice and see how the outcomes would be different.

For instance, I teamed up with an advocacy group called New America to do a study recently of the Massachusetts legislature because, as we heard, Massachusetts geography is just really bad for Republicans.

And so would a different kind of system help?

And what we find in that study is really clear.

Obviously, if you move to party lists, that would take you to proportionality right away because that's how it's constructed.

But it also seems like a well-designed ranked choice system gets you there as well.

Okay, so explain.

What is a well-designed ranked choice system?

Well, in the first place, ranked choice is just about the question you ask voters.

You don't just ask voters to pick their favorite or to pick several, but you ask them to rank the choices.

My intuition is that ranked choice only matters when there's a whole bunch of different options.

But in a world when there's a Democratic candidate and a Republican candidate, does ranked choice matter?

So usually it's coupled with something else that curates the choices.

For instance, what Alaska does is a Final Four system

where there's kind of first round of voting that's used to pick the four people who will be in contention when you rank.

I alluded a minute ago to a well-designed ranked choice system.

And here's part of what I mean by that.

You have to design how to curate that final menu of options.

And it can lead to wildness.

For instance, there is a mayoral race in Minneapolis in 2013 that was done by ranked choice where there were 35 named candidates on the ballot just for one office, which was mayor.

And one of the candidates was Captain Jack Sparrow.

And generally, it seems like a better design is to have some kind of preliminary round that gives you a more limited menu for people to rank in the final round.

There's another thing that people don't often necessarily think about when they hear about ranked choice, and that is, are you going to use rankings to elect just one office?

Or if you're trying to fill fill a body like a legislature, maybe you'll have multi-member districts or city council.

Maybe you'll have districts that elect several.

So a really interesting case is Portland, Oregon, where they just reformed the city council election system to create four districts electing three members each to make 12 on the city council.

And my modeling says that that is an especially effective system.

When you have the possibility of electing several out of the same district, then it's easier to get to proportionality within the district.

And that makes great sense.

When you're just electing one person, you can't get a fraction of the one.

Aaron Powell, that's interesting.

So if you were dictator or God,

you would move to these multi-member districts.

Makes a lot of sense.

It's just something that the founding fathers didn't think about, I think.

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Yeah, these multi-member systems, again, when you're trying to fill a representative body, they give you a big head start, a big leg up, getting towards proportional representation if that's your goal.

You and I, we have something in common that you would never be able to guess.

Okay.

It is that Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio commentator, has ridiculed both of us on his show.

Do you want to tell the story of him making fun of you first and then I'll tell you the story of how he made fun of me?

Oh, absolutely.

So I was a grad student at UChicago back in the day.

I graduated in 05, so this must have been about 03, 2003, something like that.

And some students on campus wanted gender-neutral bathrooms.

And of course, we're probably all familiar with the bathroom wars that came around 10 years after that.

Today, I hear there's a trans representative from Delaware, I think, Sarah McBride, who just got elected to the House, and folks are trying to make it hard for her to use the bathroom.

They succeeded.

I loved her response, though, which was, I'm paraphrasing, she said, said, fine, I'm not here to fight about bathrooms.

I'm here to make good policy, which I just thought was a really powerful response to the, I'll use the word lunacy, it'd probably make people angry, but the lunacy that our Congress is spending its time saying who can use the bathroom in Congress

because they feel threatened.

It's just, it's so bizarre.

Okay, but go ahead.

I didn't mean to distract you.

Yeah.

Well, so just to say, there were some students who thought it was important to just have an option for some bathrooms that weren't regulated by sex.

I had done some organizing as an undergrad, and they just asked me some advice about strategies to get the administration to cooperate.

And we debated it, and then we had some meetings with administrators, and to our amazement, the administrators were like, sure, how many and where?

It was such a non-issue.

But the Chicago Sun-Times got a hold of it.

And a reporter called me and asked if I had any comment.

And, you know, again, this is 10 years before this bathroom contestation was a little bit more of a national political issue.

And I just said, yeah, it was just no big deal in the end.

It was something that some students thought was important, and the administration did the thing.

And so now there's just more choices for people.

And the Sun-Times ran that quote, just more choices for people, I think was the quote.

And I think this was before radio trollery was quite the art form it became later, but Rush Limbaugh existed and and picked up on that and did a long riff on it on his radio show.

And also, this was the week he came back from rehab for prescription meds.

And so his audience was like huge that week.

I didn't know about it, but somebody sent me an email.

I was like, you might want to check out this clip.

So I looked it up and sure enough, He just goes to town on queers and feminists and all of his favorite people and their ringleader, Moon Dookan.

The guy was magic, I have to say.

So he goes on at some point that the University of Chicago should line the paths of campus with buckets for idiots like Moon Dookan who don't know what bathrooms are for.

I thought that was a good one.

And then at the end of the clip, he says, good night, Moon.

It's just,

chef's kiss, just beautiful.

That's my Rush Limbaugh story.

What's yours?

Okay, so my Rush Limbaugh story is from a long time ago, back in, I think around 1995.

And I never actually heard the show myself.

So I was only told about it by people who had heard the show.

So I might not get all the details exactly right, but here's the gist of it.

Shortly after I got my PhD, I had written a paper that used the impact of ACLU prison overcrowding litigation to try to estimate a causal impact of a state's prison population, the size of a a state's prison population on crime rates.

And the details aren't important, but the magazine wrote about my findings and with a headline that simply said, prisons reduce crime.

So on his show, Rush Limbaugh says something like,

So there's this real genius economist at Harvard, and he's come up with this brilliant new insight, something that no one has ever realized before.

He's figured out that when you lock up more criminals in prison, crime actually

goes down.

Now imagine that.

Wow, what a surprise.

And like you're saying, he really is magic.

He says, so I've heard he's working on a new research paper now, and the working title is Nighttime Causes Darkness.

So I have to say, even though he was making fun of me, as a young academic, I was really excited to be noticed.

And it sounds like you're the same way.

We're both talking, like he was trying to make fun of us, but we both are wearing it like a badge of honor.

Well, I had richly mixed feelings at the time.

But I want to say, if you ever come back around and want to prove that nighttime causes darkness, you have a collaborator in me.

I love that.

You're listening to People I Mostly Admire with Steve Levitt and his conversation with Moon Duchin.

After the break.

Let me ask you a question, which is probably going to sound blasphemous, but it comes from a good place.

This is a vacation with Chase Sapphire Reserve.

The butler who knows your name.

This is the robe, the view, the steam from your morning coffee.

This is the complimentary breakfast on the balcony, the beach with no one else on it.

This is the edit, a collection of hand-picked luxury hotels you can access with Chase Sapphire Reserve and a $500 edit credit that gets you closer to all of it.

Chase Sapphire Reserve, the most rewarding card.

Learn more at chase.com/slash Sapphire Reserve.

Cards issued by JPMorgan Chase Bank, and a member of FDIC, subject to credit approval.

This is Marshawn Lynch.

You and I make decisions every day, but on prize picks, being right can get you paid.

So I'm here to make sure you don't miss any of the action this football season.

With prize picks, it's good to be right.

Download the Prize Pecks app today and use code Pandora to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup.

That's code Pandora to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup.

PrizePicks.

It's good to be right.

Must be present in certain states.

Visit PrizePicks.com for restrictions and details.

Honey, do not make plans Saturday, September 13th, okay?

Why?

What's happening?

The Walmart Wellness Event.

Flu shots, health screenings, free samples from those brands you like.

All that at Walmart.

We can just walk right in.

No appointment needed.

Who knew we could cover our health and wellness needs at Walmart?

Check the calendar Saturday, September 13th.

Walmart Wellness Event.

You knew.

I knew.

Check in on your health at the same place you already shop.

Visit Walmart Saturday, September 13th for our semi-annual wellness event.

Flu shots subject to availability and applicable state law.

Age restrictions apply.

Free samples while supplies last.

Moon was a double major at Harvard in math and women's studies, and she taught women's studies courses while she was doing her math PhD at the University of Chicago.

I was curious if if her training in math informs her thinking on social issues, or maybe vice versa.

Well, I have a broader interest in what's sometimes called STS, science, technology, and society or science and technology studies, which looks at what we do as scientists and asks about power relations and social relations that inform it.

So when I was in college, I thought I was going to do math and philosophy, but I took a first philosophy class and it involved a lot of thought experiments with brains and vats and so on.

And it wasn't really about social relations in any way.

So I actually came to women's studies that way as a way to think about what science does while talking about people.

That's an interest that's really come through my whole career.

I would say the magic of this turn to think about democracy and elections is that it's really brought that interest

in people,

power, and science kind of right into the mainstream of my research program in a way that I, as a pure mathematician, continue to think is extraordinarily lucky.

Aaron Powell, let me ask you a question, which is probably going to sound blasphemous, but it comes from a good place.

And I think it's related to what we just talked about.

So there's an active effort

to have more diversity among academic economists, more people of color, more women.

And I'm sure there's even more of that in math than there is in economics.

And when you first hear about it, it seems like it's hard to argue with.

But I wonder whether at some level it might not be a good idea in the following sense.

If someone has the talent to be a top academic mathematician or economist, they have the talent to do a lot of things.

And

Young people are impressionable.

So if I find a young person and I take them under my wing and I say, hey, you should really be an academic economist, they might do it just because they trust me.

But I wonder whether socially or personally, being an academic economist or being an academic mathematician is actually maybe the best life or the biggest impact.

And so whether in some sense, we might be doing more harm than good.

Do you have any thoughts on that?

Okay, let's unpack that a little.

One piece is just about the question, is it rational to go to graduate school in the first place?

I have the great fortune to work with a lot of really talented students of all ages, really, but in particular college students.

And I definitely do try to do a gut check that asks, are you sure you want to go to grad school?

Here's what it's like.

Let's talk about what it's like and what comes next and the trade-offs.

So I'm very sensitive to that.

But why do I want to be a professor after all?

When I started doing some of this redistricting work and I realized that I could be useful in these court cases, I considered leaving academia and doing other kinds of work, think tanky work, consulting work.

I certainly wouldn't be giving up on life's comforts to do those other things.

But actually, I love this work as a professor.

I love the gig.

And it's partly because I really am an educator in addition to a researcher.

And I love the opportunity to work with students.

So ultimately, for talented, motivated students, I still think there's a lot to be said about the professor gig.

So you're the winner, right?

You succeeded.

So many people with so much talent enter grad school and don't win the academic lottery.

Well, there's other forces at work, though, that you have to really think about to take your initial question about should we push for diversity in academia seriously.

I'll tell you one thing that I've noticed now.

I do a fair amount of not only hiring and admissions, like we all do, but also I sit on prize prize committees and other kinds of things.

And if you're sitting on some committee that's giving out some prestigious something or other, there are probably some people on the committee who are, you might say, diversity-minded and want to be sure that in contention for the thing you're giving out, the list includes names of women, people of color, people from whatever kind of marginalized identities.

You want to be sure they're on the table.

And then there's other folks on the committee who have a really pressing concern that, you know, what about the white guys?

And you get this really unhealthy dynamic around hiring.

And so something I've thought a lot about, it sounds like you have too, is how to structure practices around admissions and hiring in ways that get past this kind of team play and get you back to something that gives folks an opportunity to get to the top of the list and not just be tokenized.

Aaron Powell, Jr.: I actually approach the problem somewhat differently, which is that

socially there's obvious benefit in bringing diversity into academics.

But there's also obvious benefit in bringing diversity into all sorts of other elite areas of society.

And I wonder whether for the individuals involved who we're trying to push and nudge in these different directions, whether we might actually be doing them a disservice when indeed the whole world is open to them.

And because as academics, you and I get first pass at them, we have more sway over what they do than, say, someone in the U.S.

Senate or in the cabinet.

If they got a hold of this person to say, look, we need great people like you in politics.

You should follow politics.

But we co-opt them before they get a chance to do that.

Well, maybe.

I've really noticed in the last five years or so.

So we had this COVID pandemic, obviously.

Also, a big tech boom that happened before and has maybe tightened up a little bit afterwards.

But I find it less and less true that undergrads want to be us in the first place.

I think that's been a little bit of a change.

But for another thing, wouldn't it be patronizing to say to people, yes, you think you want to be a professor, but I think you'd make a really great journalist.

Well, you'll have a better life, trust me.

You're talking about trying to get the best people.

And I think that we need to strive for processes that are fair and that evaluate people based on what what they have to offer in the job.

And since we're far from doing that, there's also room to work on our processes in addition to helping people become better informed about their options.

Okay, I'm going to ask you a last question.

So you're a theoretical mathematician who, because of your applied work, has gotten to see the real world in action.

And at least for me, when I wrote Freaking Homics and I got a taste of the real world, I was really poisoned academics after that because I found the real world to be much more fun.

Has your exposure to the real world tainted you on academics like it did me?

I don't think so, no.

It's still the case that I step onto a college campus and I see the posters for the talks that are coming up and I get all excited.

I really love the life of a campus and all of the different kinds of intellectual projects that people bring into collision with each other.

I legitimately find it tremendously exciting, nerdy as that is.

At a point in time when politics is so divisive, it's really heartening to me that someone as thoughtful and insightful as Moon Duchin has actually been welcomed into the redistricting process, which is about the most divisive issue there is.

If you want to learn more about Moon Duchin's work on redistricting, check out the website for her center.

The URL is mggg.org.

That's mggg.org.

This is the point in the show where my producer Morgan joins me and we tackle a listener question.

Hi, Steve.

So, a few weeks ago, we had Richard Reeves on the show.

He runs the American Institute for Boys and Men.

And you and he really dug into why the current education system isn't working so well for boys.

And at the end of the show, you asked listeners to write in with new and radical ideas for overhauling the education system, which is not a new topic for the show, but one we like to revisit often.

We got a lot of emails from listeners, didn't we?

We sure did.

And I have to say, this was the single most thoughtful set of responses we've ever gotten to a request for listener ideas.

I found myself nodding in agreement with almost every suggestion.

Did you have the same reaction?

Yeah, we had a lot of great emails and people from a of backgrounds, some former educators, some people involved in running schools, a lot of just parents who have witnessed things with their own kids.

Do you have maybe your top five favorites?

Yeah, I liked a lot of the ideas from kids spending one school week per year in nature to banning homework to having older students spending a big chunk of their time teaching younger students.

Many listeners would like to see higher salaries for teachers, which makes sense to me.

Being a teacher is an important job and it's a hard job.

And it's a profession where there's a huge gap between the people who do it well and the people who don't.

And in particular, I'd love to see really substantial merit pay for great teachers, although I'm realistic about the practical difficulties of doing that well, especially in a system where teachers are unionized.

But my single favorite idea, mentioned by a long-term educator named David, is to get rid of grades and replace them with a mastery-based transcript.

I obviously understand the logic of why we have grades both to provide incentives to kids and to help college admissions decisions.

But my own opinion is that grades have become toxic.

When you give people strong incentives like grades, they respond strongly.

And I think grades have become such an obsession among students that they now interfere with real learning rather than encouraging it.

So, the mastery model is one we've talked about on the show before, particularly with Sal Khan, the founder of Khan Academy, who's been on the show a few different times.

Can you just summarize the mastery model?

Yeah, the idea is that students tackle a topic and they work on it as long as it takes them to actually understand it.

So, if they can do it in a day, no problem.

If it takes them two months, that's fine too.

It's not like you take a test and if you fail the test, you're done.

You take a test and if you didn't get it, well, then you can keep on working at it until you get it.

In some ways, it's more informative for a college because it actually tells you what the child has really learned.

In other ways, it's less informative because in the end, most of the kids will end up mastering everything, which actually is the goal.

It just makes it harder to say who's ahead or behind in the way we typically use grades.

Another idea that listeners had that could happen with the adoption of a mastery model is grade levels aren't associated with age.

Would that play a factor where students of all different ages might be taking classes together based on how long it's taking them to grasp a particular concept?

Yeah, absolutely.

And there's a great example from a gentleman named Terry who's from Canada and he's a principal.

He's got kids who play hockey.

And when you show up for the first couple days of hockey practice, he said, there are eight adults with clipboards in the stands making detailed comments about each kid's talent level and then assigning the kids appropriately to what team they should be on.

And he contrasted that with what he does as a principal, which is to just take kids and arrange them by age into a classroom where they're all taught the same thing, regardless of whether they need it or not.

It probably tells you something about the importance of hockey relative to education in the Canadian mindset.

But it's a really good, funny, but compelling point that it makes no sense to have a teacher stand up and teach 30 kids the exact same thing when those 30 kids are at all different levels.

And the only thing that's linking them is age.

Exactly.

In this new mastery school environment, are kids graduating high school at radically different ages?

Typically, the view is still that students will stick around in high school for the same number of years, but the more advanced students will likely do a bunch of community college or university level courses while they're in high school.

People have the view that it's not a great idea for 14 and 15 year olds to be wandering around college campuses as college freshmen.

It's better to keep them closer to home in the short run and let them do the coursework, but not have the full independence until they're, say, 18 or 19 years old.

So you really like this idea of getting rid of grades.

Doesn't that present a pretty big issue for colleges who are evaluating students for admittance?

So it's not like the college will have nothing.

They'll have a list of all the topics you've mastered.

So they'll know a lot about you.

But my hope is that colleges will actually be forced to look for more important traits that students have, like curiosity or true enthusiasm for learning.

And if I had my dream, what students would leave high school with wouldn't be a transcript.

It would be more like a portfolio where the student could show, hey, here's all the things that I learned, all the topics I went out on my own and I delved into.

Here's the business I started.

Here's the volunteer work that I didn't just pretend to do because it would get me into college, but here's what I actually did.

If grades disappeared and colleges were forced to evaluate students on real traits, I think we'd have students who are incentivized to do things that matter instead of just grinding for grades.

Okay, but isn't it going to take colleges and universities now 20 times longer to evaluate an individual student?

If it did, I wouldn't exactly cry for the colleges.

If they're not concerned about getting the best students, they can just draw names out of a hat.

It seems like they should be willing to put in the effort to try to find the best students.

Thank you to everyone who wrote in.

If you have a question for us, our email is pima at freeconomics.com.

It's p-im-a at freekonomics.com.

If you have a question for Moon Duchin, we can try to bring her that question and get it answered in a future listener question segment.

We read every email that's sent and we look forward to reading yours.

Next week, we're back with an encore presentation with Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert.

This turned out to be one of the most popular episodes we've ever done.

And in two weeks, we have a brand new episode with historian Elsa Richardson, whose recent work is all about the history of the human gut.

Don't want to miss that.

As always, thanks for listening and we'll see you back soon.

People I Mostly Admire is part of the Freakonomics Radio Network, which also includes Freakonomics Radio, No Stupid Questions, and the Economics of Everyday Things.

All our shows are produced by Stitcher and Renbud Radio.

This episode was produced by Morgan Levy, with help from Lyric Vowdich and mixed by Jason Gambrell.

We had research assistance from Daniel Morrick's Rabzin.

Our theme music was composed by Luis Gara.

We can be reached at pima at freakonomics.com.

That's P-I-M-A at Freconomics.com.

Thanks for listening.

I think I would have taken more math classes if you had been my professor.

Life is long.

We have time.

The Freakonomics Radio Network, the hidden side of everything.

Stitcher.

So, um, I was just parking my car, and then I saw you, the Gecko, huge fan.

I'm always honored to meet fans out in the wild.

The honor's mine.

I just love being able to file a claim in under two minutes with the Geico app.

Well, the Geico app is top-notch.

I know you get asked this all the time, but could you sign it?

Sign what?

The app?

Yeah, sure.

Oh, that means so much.

Oh, it rubbed off the screen when I touched it.

Could you sign it again?

Anything to help, I suppose.

You're the best.

Get more than just savings.

Get more with Geico.

This is Marshawn Lynch.

You and I make decisions every day, but on prize picks, being right can get you paid.

So I'm here to make sure you don't miss any of the action this football season.

With Prize Picks, it's good to be right.

Download the Prize Picks app today and use code Pandora to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup.

That's code Pandora to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup.

Prize picks.

It's good to be right.

Must be present in certain states.

Visit PrizePicks.com for restrictions and details.

Honey, do not make plans Saturday, September 13th, okay?

Why, what's happening?

The Walmart Wellness Event.

Flu shots, health screenings, free samples from those brands you like.

All that at Walmart.

We can just walk right in.

No appointment needed.

Who knew we could cover our health and wellness needs at Walmart?

Check the calendar Saturday, September 13th.

Walmart Wellness Event.

You knew.

I knew.

Check in on your health at the same place you already shop.

Visit Walmart Saturday, September 13th for our semi-annual wellness event.

Flu shots subject to availability and applicable state law.

Age restrictions apply.

Free samples while supplies last.