BBCPERSIAN — broadcast
20261010 050000 UTC
428 transcript segments
Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking
Data courtesy of The GDELT Project (https://www.gdeltproject.org/), from the Internet Archive TV News Archive.
Machine transcription. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a verbatim quotation record.

[00:00:30] How can they achieve victory
[00:00:32] in Texas?
[00:00:39] Welcome to the ABCs of the US elections, a BBC Persian podcast.
[00:00:43] I'm Sameh Farzaneh.
[00:00:46] The system of government in the US is representative
[00:00:50] democracy or electoral populism,
[00:00:53] or something similar to that.
[00:00:56] This means that people themselves are responsible
[00:01:00] However, since it's practically impossible for everyone to express their opinions
[00:01:04] on everything and vote,
[00:01:07] they elect representatives
[00:01:10] to carry out decision-making
[00:01:13] in various capacities.
[00:01:16] The legitimacy of these individuals,
[00:01:19] these politicians, comes from the votes
[00:01:23] people give them, saying, "Madam/Sir, now go to the
[00:01:27] village council, be the mayor,
[00:01:30] be a member of parliament, the state legislature,
[00:01:32] the Senate, or the President, and
[00:01:36] do these things for us."
[00:01:39] Now, let's think of a situation where,
[00:01:42] instead of people choosing politicians, it's the politicians
[00:01:46] who choose the people
[00:01:50] they are going to represent.
[00:01:53] This creates a strange
[00:01:56] situation, and it's interesting
[00:01:59] that in American elections, this issue
[00:02:02] happens quite often, they even have a word
[00:02:06] for it: gerrymandering. Remember, our plan was that
[00:02:09] in each program, we would discuss
[00:02:13] something as a question
[00:02:16] at the beginning, and then answer it later. It's not
[00:02:20] a very important thing, but it's interesting to know.
[00:02:23] This time, let's think about
[00:02:27] the etymology of gerrymandering. What is it? Where
[00:02:31] did it come from? We'll talk about it at the end
[00:02:34] of the program. Leyla Khodabakhshi, one of the BBC
[00:02:38] English correspondents who works in the US, is with us.
[00:02:42] Leyla, you've worked on this very gerrymandering issue,
[00:02:46] you know about it.
[00:02:48] Let's talk a little about what gerrymandering is.
[00:02:52] First, a brief explanation
[00:02:54] from me: we have electoral
[00:02:57] districts in Congress.
[00:03:03] In the Senate, it doesn't make sense because
[00:03:07] senators represent the entire state.
[00:03:11] But gerrymandering becomes important in the House of Representatives,
[00:03:14] right? Gerrymandering,
[00:03:18] in fact, means manipulating
[00:03:20] the boundaries of electoral districts
[00:03:24] so that the outcome of the vote benefits
[00:03:27] one political group. It's a bit complicated;
[00:03:30] I'll explain it. Imagine that in
[00:03:33] a state, specifically, for example,
[00:03:37] 40% of voters support the Democratic Party,
[00:03:40] and 60% support the Republican Party.
[00:03:44] Depending on how electoral districts are drawn in that
[00:03:48] state, the number of seats
[00:03:51] each of these parties wins can
[00:03:55] change. For example,
[00:03:59] there are usually two methods.
[00:04:01] One is to concentrate the supporters of one party
[00:04:05] in one electoral district. For example, in that
[00:04:09] 40-60 scenario,
[00:04:11] they might put about 30% of the supporters
[00:04:15] of, say, the Democratic Party, into one electoral district.
[00:04:18] In that case, in one district, the Democratic
[00:04:21] Party wins decisively, but loses
[00:04:25] in three or four other districts, and as a result,
[00:04:29] the number of seats it wins is fewer. Another method
[00:04:32] of gerrymandering is to disperse the supporters of one
[00:04:36] party so widely that they are in all districts, but their number is so
[00:04:40] small that they lose. For example, in this case,
[00:04:44] the supporters of the conservative party, who are 60%,
[00:04:47] are so dispersed that they are in, say, five or six
[00:04:51] districts, but with a very small minority,
[00:04:54] they can't become a majority. They lose with a small minority
[00:04:58] in those districts. Well, yes. As you said, it only makes sense
[00:05:01] for the House of Representatives, where in the US,
[00:05:05] people vote based on the districts
[00:05:08] they are assigned to. And generally,
[00:05:12] they don't do this every
[00:05:14] year; they don't manipulate electoral districts
[00:05:18] every 10 years. You see, every 10 years,
[00:05:22] in years like
[00:05:23] '20, '30, '40,
[00:05:26] they count the number of people.
[00:05:30] The 2020 census was the last census
[00:05:33] conducted in the US. It was expected that this review
[00:05:37] of electoral districts would take place in 2023.
[00:05:41] It would be the year after, for example, 2031, because
[00:05:44] the results won't be out until then. Then, based on
[00:05:48] the population of each state, Congress determines how many
[00:05:51] representatives each state can have.
[00:05:55] Usually, over these 10 years, some states' populations
[00:05:58] increase or decrease, and the numbers change a little.
[00:06:02] For example, in 2020, I think Texas gained seats,
[00:06:05] and California lost some. Then, this is given to the state,
[00:06:09] saying, "State, you determine how you want to divide
[00:06:12] these, say, 9, 50 people."
[00:06:16] And this becomes the responsibility
[00:06:20] of that state to do this. Right?
[00:06:23] For example, in the recent disputes from last
[00:06:26] year to this year, in various
[00:06:30] states, the Supreme Court has generally not intervened
[00:06:33] (except for one or two cases) and usually sends it back
[00:06:36] to the state itself. And as you said, this is because
[00:06:40] the decennial censuses reveal the population.
[00:06:45] So that the elections are fair,
[00:06:48] they review the boundaries of the electoral districts
[00:06:51] and redefine them from scratch.
[00:06:55] But well, this is another one of those surprises
[00:06:58] that happens in the US. This year, they've decided
[00:07:02] to... Yes, we'll talk about this, but first, let me say that
[00:07:06] drawing these maps itself is not
[00:07:09] gerrymandering; it's a duty. You have to draw the map.
[00:07:35] They decided to do this. What was the reason?
[00:07:38] In fact, the conservative party, which supports Mr. Trump,
[00:07:42] has a very fragile majority in the House of Representatives.
[00:07:45] And in this midterm election that will be held on November
[00:07:49] 3rd this year, if they lose a few seats, they will actually lose
[00:07:53] the majority in the House of Representatives, and then
[00:07:56] they will have problems with the budget because they don't have the majority
[00:08:00] for many laws they want to pass, bills that go to Congress will face problems.
[00:08:04] In addition, the results of many polls that have come
[00:08:07] out indicate that Mr. Trump's popularity
[00:08:10] is decreasing. For example, Mr. Trump's popularity
[00:08:14] has dropped by 30%, but in the end,
[00:08:18] Mr. Trump started this matter with Texas,
[00:08:22] and when they started gerrymandering in Texas,
[00:08:25] they actually manipulated the electoral districts
[00:08:28] in Texas to reduce the Democrats' seats and increase the Republicans'.
[00:08:32] Yes, for example, in Texas, they predict that about 5 seats
[00:08:36] will be added to the supporters
[00:08:39] of the conservative party due to the manipulation.
[00:08:43] And well, when this happened in Texas, in California,
[00:08:47] which is a Democratic state, and Mr.
[00:08:50] Gavin Newsom, who is their governor, started gerrymandering and
[00:08:54] manipulating these electoral districts in California, so that in
[00:08:57] California, about (again, according
[00:09:00] to predictions) a number of seats will be added to the Democratic
[00:09:03] supporters in California.
[00:09:07] And well, this was the beginning of this story, and they started
[00:09:11] it in all other states as well, for example, in Ohio,
[00:09:15] in Florida, and Utah, and even
[00:09:18] Missouri. One of the interesting things that happened in Missouri was that
[00:09:22] it went back and forth between this court and that court. Now,
[00:09:26] not now, but about a month ago, I remember some
[00:09:29] people were saying, "We don't even know what to print on the ballot,
[00:09:33] whose name should be here?" And they were facing
[00:09:36] fundamental problems in that state. Let me tell you something interesting.
[00:09:40] One of these research centers
[00:09:42] at a university says that out of 435
[00:09:46] House of Representatives seats, the fate
[00:09:49] of 352 is already completely decided.
[00:09:53] Either a Democrat takes it, or a Republican, either because of
[00:09:56] gerrymandering or because that area simply has
[00:10:00] a lot of people who support that party.
[00:10:03] Another think tank
[00:10:06] found that the fate of 361
[00:10:09] seats is already decided. And when they say,
[00:10:12] those who are most likely and very likely, and let's
[00:10:16] put those aside, the dispute is over 20-30 seats.
[00:10:20] That is, in such a large country,
[00:10:22] 435 seats
[00:10:28] determine which party has the upper hand
[00:10:31] in Congress. Yes, this really goes back to the point
[00:10:34] you made earlier, which is whether people elect representatives
[00:10:38] or representatives actually manipulate things in a way,
[00:10:42] because gerrymandering, in a sense, is not manipulating or changing
[00:10:46] people's votes, but it changes
[00:10:49] the outcome of the election and the number of seats
[00:10:52] each party gets. And one
[00:10:56] of the biggest criticisms is that it really
[00:11:00] erodes trust between people
[00:11:03] and parties. It destroys trust in the election results
[00:11:06] when electoral districts are manipulated in such a way
[00:11:10] that the outcome is almost known beforehand.
[00:11:13] It also significantly reduces competition
[00:11:15] among political parties, as you pointed
[00:11:19] out. This competition is eliminated.
[00:11:23] Many political scientists
[00:11:25] are concerned, and then they face another problem.
[00:11:29] You think, who wants to fix this? A member of parliament
[00:11:33] who came into parliament through this very method wants to fix this?
[00:11:36] It creates a cycle.
[00:11:39] Now, I was listening to an interview
[00:11:42] with one of these political scientists, and he said that it really needs
[00:11:46] to become a national demand, whether Republican or
[00:11:49] Democrat, whose vote is broken up this way.
[00:11:53] He needs to demand this from politicians, and this national demand
[00:11:57] must take shape so that there are some laws to stop
[00:12:00] this. Because what happens when we have
[00:12:04] gerrymandering is that in the elections,
[00:12:08] the election on November 3rd, or any day in
[00:12:11] November, doesn't matter anymore.
[00:12:14] The primaries become important, who within the party
[00:12:18] we want to bring up. And in internal party elections,
[00:12:22] for Democrats, it's usually the very leftists.
[00:12:25] For Republicans, it's usually the very rightists.
[00:12:28] These are the ones who can win votes. And then, for people who are so far
[00:12:32] from the center, it becomes very difficult for them to reach a consensus
[00:12:35] in the middle. That's right. The serious
[00:12:39] harm of gerrymandering is that
[00:12:41] you might have a larger
[00:12:45] absolute number of supporters for a particular
[00:12:48] party in different states, but ultimately,
[00:12:51] with this manipulation, the opposite result occurs.
[00:12:55] The number of representatives for the party with fewer supporters
[00:12:58] might be higher, and representation for the majority
[00:13:02] no longer happens. And this is one
[00:13:05] of the biggest criticisms against it.
[00:13:09] However, it must be said that gerrymandering is not illegal
[00:13:12] in the US. In some cases, it could be illegal
[00:13:16] if, for example, racial minorities were excluded.
[00:13:20] But with the changes made by the Supreme Court, that is no
[00:13:23] longer an issue. Thank you very much,
[00:13:27] Leyla. Leyla Khodabakhshi.
[00:13:30] But let's return to the first question of the program,
[00:13:33] which was about the etymology of gerrymandering.
[00:13:37] This word was coined by a newspaper in the state
[00:13:40] of Massachusetts, USA,
[00:13:44] in 1812. The story is that the state
[00:13:47] of Massachusetts had a governor
[00:13:50] who later became Vice President. His name was
[00:13:54] Elbridge Gerry. Mr.
[00:13:57] Gerry drew a map, actually approved a map
[00:14:00] for the elections, where an electoral district
[00:14:04] was created to benefit his own party.
[00:14:07] And this Massachusetts newspaper
[00:14:10] imagined that this map, this piece of this
[00:14:13] electoral district, looked like
[00:14:16] a salamander, that animal that resembles
[00:14:20] a lizard. Then they drew a cartoon
[00:14:23] on this map, making that electoral
[00:14:27] district look like a salamander
[00:14:31] with a dragon's head. They also coined
[00:14:35] a word, putting Gerry next to "salamander,"
[00:14:39] which means salamander,
[00:14:41] and thus created the word
[00:14:44] "gerrymander." Thank you for watching
[00:14:48] or listening to us. We will be back
[00:14:52] to talk more about the ins and outs
[00:14:55] of the US elections. Be well.
[00:14:58] and happy. This week, on Rang Ahang,
[00:15:02] we're going to talk about one of the new sounds that has emerged from the combination
[00:15:04] of Western classical music
[00:15:07] and Iranian culture. Also, we'll go back to nostalgia and the atmosphere
[00:15:10] of intimate and small concerts
[00:15:13] held in people's living rooms. And finally, we'll take a look at the latest
[00:15:17] work by Abadi, with lyrics by Mullah Ghorzi.
[00:15:19] So Mr. Paxson is not a very popular
[00:15:23] person. So we need to consider
[00:15:26] all three together. But certainly, the first two are more important.
[00:15:29] That is, the poor state
[00:15:32] of Republicans in the American political
[00:15:36] landscape after this war and economic
[00:15:39] situation, and that this representative,
[00:15:43] this person the Republicans nominated,
[00:15:46] has a very bad record.
[00:15:50] And the third is that Mr.
[00:15:53] Talarico is also a nominee.
[00:15:56] If it were not
[00:15:59] for the first two, Mr. Talarico
[00:16:03] would not have been able to win in Texas,
[00:16:07] even if he were Jesus Christ.
[00:16:09] But when you put these three
[00:16:13] together, it's what has given the Democrats
[00:16:16] hope that a storm is brewing,
[00:16:19] and this storm can, with a small
[00:16:23] difference, it's hard to imagine
[00:16:26] Mr. Taleh winning by a large margin.
[00:16:30] But if he wins, which is still a big
[00:16:34] if, and millions of dollars are being spent
[00:16:37] against him by Republicans in advertising,
[00:16:41] if all of this does not have an
[00:16:44] effect and he wins, with a very small
[00:16:47] margin, he can probably
[00:16:51] break the curse of Texas that has lasted
[00:16:55] for several decades. Why is Mr. Paxson
[00:16:59] not popular? There are many reasons,
[00:17:02] but the most important is that Mr. Paxson,
[00:17:06] in his capacity as Attorney General
[00:17:09] of Texas, has been impeached
[00:17:13] by his own party members.
[00:17:17] You rarely see a party in the American
[00:17:20] political space impeach a prominent
[00:17:24] figure of their own party. That is, the corruption
[00:17:26] and accusations of corruption must be so severe
[00:17:30] that they no longer think it is in their interest
[00:17:33] to defend a person in power.
[00:18:08] Mr. Paxson is not a very popular
[00:18:11] person. You have to look at all three together.
[00:18:15] But certainly, the first two are more important.
[00:18:18] That is, the poor situation of Republicans in the American
[00:18:22] political space after this war and economic
[00:18:25] situation, and that this nominee of the Republicans
[00:18:29] has a very bad record.
[00:18:32] And the third is that Mr.
[00:18:36] Talarico is also a candidate.
[00:19:04] who usually have a bad relationship with religion in the political
[00:19:07] sphere. But if those first two weren't
[00:19:11] there, Mr. Talarico,
[00:19:13] even if he were Christ himself, probably couldn't win
[00:19:17] in Texas. But really, when you put these three
[00:19:21] together, it's what has made Democrats hopeful
[00:19:24] that a storm is brewing, and this storm can,
[00:19:28] with a small margin... it's hard to imagine
[00:19:31] Mr. Telle winning by a large margin. But if he wins,
[00:19:35] which is still a big if, and millions
[00:19:38] of dollars are being spent against him in advertising,
[00:19:42] if all this does not work and he wins,
[00:19:45] he can probably break the decades-long
[00:19:48] curse of Texas with a very small margin.
[00:19:50] Why
[00:19:53] are Mr. Paxson's problems not popular?
[00:19:56] There are many, but the most important is that Mr. Paxson,
[00:19:59] in his capacity as Attorney General
[00:20:02] of Texas, was impeached by his own party
[00:20:06] members. You rarely see
[00:20:10] a party in the American political sphere impeach
[00:20:13] a prominent figure of its own party. That is, the corruption
[00:20:17] and accusations of corruption must be so severe
[00:20:20] that they no longer think it's in their interest
[00:20:23] to defend a person in power. Serious financial corruption charges,
[00:20:27] even in the agreement he made
[00:20:30] to release someone accused of child sexual abuse.
[00:20:34] And beyond that, there are images of Mr. Paxson,
[00:20:38] for example, stealing someone's expensive pen,
[00:20:41] a valuable pen, at the airport.
[00:20:44] And his entire image is on camera,
[00:20:48] where he passes through the area where
[00:20:51] people's belongings are checked, passes through the check machine,
[00:20:55] and this pen belongs to someone else. It was an expensive
[00:20:58] pen, a thousand-dollar pen or something, he puts it in his pocket and leaves.
[00:21:02] And such images, for example, in the Senate
[00:21:05] elections, have been very much used
[00:21:08] by Mr. Paxson's opponent, the Democrats,
[00:21:12] who say, "This man, regardless of his views,
[00:21:15] is a thief. I don't know,
[00:21:19] he has come to terms with someone accused of child sexual abuse,
[00:21:22] and his own party members wanted to impeach him
[00:21:26] for financial corruption." One of the strange
[00:21:29] things about Paxson is that Mr.
[00:21:31] Trump supports him.
[00:21:35] I've seen him say a few times, "He's not very handsome,
[00:21:38] not well-dressed, etc. I don't know how
[00:21:42] he works." For example, what do Mr. Trump's supporters
[00:21:46] think? What kind of way is this to sell
[00:21:50] a candidate, to say he doesn't speak well, isn't handsome, isn't well-dressed,
[00:21:53] but you should still vote for him?
[00:21:56] Well, first, let's remember that Mr. Trump
[00:22:00] didn't need to go to Texas for his own election
[00:22:04] because Texas was already in his favor and he didn't need
[00:22:08] to motivate voters. But Mr. Paxson's situation
[00:22:11] is so bad that Mr. Trump has gone to this state a couple of times.
[00:22:14] But as you say, in his praise of Mr.
[00:22:17] Paxson, saying to vote for him, he actually
[00:22:21] attributes some negative qualities to him, like being poorly dressed, or other things
[00:22:25] he says about him. But in a way,
[00:22:29] he wants to tell the voters that these flaws
[00:22:32] that we all know about Mr. Paxson,
[00:22:36] let's accept them, but still vote for him because there's a more important issue,
[00:22:39] and that's keeping this seat. Let's remember that psychologically,
[00:22:43] it's not just about one seat.
[00:22:46] Republicans' philosophy of governing a state
[00:22:50] and governing the country,
[00:22:54] a large part of it, they promote by referring
[00:22:57] to Texas. They say, "Look how Texas's
[00:23:01] population is growing, people are migrating there from other states.
[00:23:04] The system there, where taxes are lower, is so much better
[00:23:08] than, for example, California, where taxes are higher, or Democrats
[00:23:12] govern it." And as a result, this is
[00:23:16] a model for Republicans. The fall of Texas and its falling into the hands
[00:23:34] This election, in which Senator John Cornyn,
[00:23:37] who had represented Texas for many
[00:23:41] years, was sort of thrown
[00:23:45] out, due to some things he had said about Mr. Trump.
[00:23:48] Mr. Trump did not support him
[00:23:51] and leaned towards Mr. Paxton.
[00:23:55] And ultimately, the Republican nomination
[00:23:59] went to Paxton. That is, Mr. Trump
[00:24:03] wanted to settle some scores in these two years with
[00:24:06] a few Republicans who didn't necessarily
[00:24:09] oppose him, but were not 100%
[00:24:13] with him on every issue.
[00:24:16] And this act of revenge, perhaps if the Democrats
[00:24:20] win in Texas, if Mr. Talarico wins
[00:24:23] in Texas, it will turn into an own
[00:24:27] goal. In fact, because of this
[00:24:30] so-called fire he has for taking revenge
[00:24:33] on those who were not completely loyal to him,
[00:24:36] he came to support a candidate who, in the internal
[00:24:40] party dispute, replaced someone who could have
[00:24:43] won the election more easily. And now, if Mr. Paxton loses,
[00:24:47] many will look at Mr. Trump and many
[00:25:20] of the things he says might be the concoction
[00:25:23] that gets him across the finish line successfully,
[00:25:27] because he's not saying, "I'm just like those Democrats
[00:25:31] in Washington or New York."
[00:25:34] He's saying, "I'm different and I will represent
[00:25:37] Texas, and I won't be just
[00:25:40] a partisan actor." This distancing himself
[00:25:44] from Republicans and his fellow Democrats
[00:25:47] might help him to win. Thank you,
[00:25:50] Bahman, Bahman Kalbasi. But let's go back to the first
[00:25:54] question of the program, which was about the etymology
[00:25:57] of gerrymandering. This word was invented
[00:26:01] by a Massachusetts newspaper
[00:26:05] in 1812. The story is that the state
[00:26:08] of Massachusetts had a governor who later
[00:26:12] became Vice President. His name was Elbridge
[00:26:16] Gerry. Mr. Gerry drew a map,
[00:26:20] actually approved a map for the elections,
[00:26:24] where an electoral district was created to benefit his own party.
[00:26:27] And this Massachusetts newspaper
[00:26:30] imagined that this map, this piece of this electoral
[00:26:33] district, looked like a salamander,
[00:26:37] that animal that resembles a lizard. Then they drew a cartoon
[00:26:40] that depicted that electoral district on the map
[00:26:43] as a salamander with a dragon's head.
[00:26:47] They also coined a word, putting Gerry next to "salamander,"
[00:26:51] which means salamander, and thus created
[00:26:55] the word "gerrymander." Thank you for watching
[00:26:58] or listening to us. We will be back
[00:27:01] to talk more about the ins and outs
[00:27:04] of the US elections.
[00:27:05] Be well.