So its my pleasure now to introduce bob cusack, the editor in chief of the hill the wmata rate a panel on how will candidates messages and platforms change with the popular vote. Bob. Thanks, jim. I want to introduce our panel. Norm ornstein of aei. Michael steele, former chair of the rnc. Brianna carmen, of vote latino, and jesse wegman of the New York Times editorial board. I was looking back at the states that were visited most by donald trump and Hillary Clinton in the last election. Not surprisingly it was ohio, north carolina, florida, pennsylvania. Democrats wish Hillary Clinton had visited wisconsin a bit more but the first question would be if we did change the system, norm, would be the impact of campaigns and their strategy . As you mentioned, bob, they visited the large states. And i was kind of in use when senator cramer of north dakota defending the Electoral College said this would make north dakota irrelevant. Well, guess what. When comes to president ial politics, north dakota is totally irrelevant right now. But lets say we had a president ial election that was looking awfully close in terms of popular votes. Then every vote would count, and candidates would have an incentive to try and maximize the turnout even in places like north dakota. One of the things when we dissected Hillary Clintons loss, one of the things that kept coming up was, not whether she visited pennsylvania or michigan, but that the analytics on the team said go to the places where your votes are. Instead of going to places where she lost 8024 she mightve moved it to 6040 and made a difference, they ignore those areas. But if youre looking at a reality where the votes count as they do within states, the smart thing to do is to go everywhere and make sure that you can get votes even in places in counties and states that you would lose. I think what we would see is Television Ads in places like north dakota which of course they are very cheap. You would see a Ground Campaign because if youre going to lose by as Richard Nixon did in 1960, one vote per precinct, and you know if you can shift to vote per precinct, you could win, youre going to go everywhere. So the paradox here is that the major defense of the Electoral College that it gives cloud to small states is exactly wrong. Small states would have much more clout in the world we live in if we had a National Popular vote. Michael, you have been in the war rooms of campaigns, in president ial elections, i mean other than the primaries, do states like north dakota, are the even discussed . No. [laughing] they arent. The fact, no, they arent. Only to the extent though you do mention how much money she can get out of north dakota. Because it becomes a donor state like my home state of maryland. If youre republican you will he come to maryland if you want to have a fundraiser. You are not going to go to the campaign for the votes the way normally thats an important thing to understand, the way the system is designed to through the Electoral College, what we have found up doing, folks, is we are not Holding Elections in the United States of america. Holding elections in the battleground states of america. Youre only talking any given president ial cycle summer between eight and 12 states that the president ial campaigns give a damn about. Because the rest of it is just sidelines, fly over or it is dont. Youre not going to take the time or spend the money. You are going to concentrate on those winner take all states that you need as dictated by the current political cycle or other things you look at and say, okay, michigan in the last cycle would have been a battleground state had Hillary Clinton played effectively here but she sort of took it for granted and donald trump didnt. That speaks to the nature of this particular effort. It does open up the prospect, it forces candidates to have to Pay Attention to every state because every state becomes important. If im running for president as a republican, all of a sudden californian is equally important to me as my home state of maryland, or florida or ohio. Why . Because im about turning my boat, getting my vote. I may lose the vote in california, but that vote is now added to a bigger number that will help me in a national campaign. We talk a lot about National Races here in the United States. This this is a national campaig, national polling. At the end of the day there only polling and only care about a handful of states. If youre not in one of the states, you are not going to the benefit of it. As my good friend, chairman of the Michigan Party at the time, the 2008 cycle, michigan was a big player until the Mccain Campaign decided to pull out. Right . And made this conclusion, this is no longer relevant. It was relevant to all the races that were taking place in michigan at that time. And the impact of that premature removal from the race resulted in losses not just of the state by the president ial candidate, but down ballot as well. You can see there are connections here beyond just the president ial, and why making as nor put up the platform available to every voter purchase of a compatibility gets to and 81 up and down the system benefits from it. Brianna, if we went to a National Popular vote, how would it affect voter turnout . Ive talked to republicans of maryland to literally said recently my vote doesnt count in the president ial but a lot of people feel that way. We did help significantly . I absolutely believe that it would. So we see that one of the key reasons why people dont like to trip to vote is because if you like to vote doesnt matter. If this apathy that to grow so that you ask as an individual u are not turning up, campaign jeanette reaching at you and its a vicious cycle. Virginia virginia is a good example of how we can correct this where in 2000 virginia was solidly republican. No one went out to it, no one posted in events there. Flash forward to 2016, virginia is a contested state. You saw 23 president ial events there, and that means for ginger, individuals and virginia ended up turning it more and states that were traditionally considered safe. You had about 66 turnout in virginia, up from 2000 were states like texas weather traditionally considered safe and you dont host events, you saw voter turnout than 50 . You know people when the vote matters they would turn out in the National Popular vote would contribute to that. Just to follow, the critics say the candidates which is go to the big cities. Right. I think it is definitely an increase from what we see now because candidates, they completely ignore 40 or so states. They are just sold focusing on ten battleground states like michigan, pennsylvania, wisconsin. If we switch to the National Popular vote you would have to reach out to more individuals in more diverse areas. You would be reaching more of the net because of the Current System for goes about 80 of the electorate jesse, you have a book coming out in the spring on this. What you do learn, what did you hear from people on this topic . Its interesting. The book looks at the history of the Electoral College and efforts to change it over the years but i in the chapter on talking to Campaign Managers and feel directors on the last 20 or so years from both republican and democratic campaigns. What was fascinating to me was almost to a person they all wanted a National Popular vote. Both sides of . Both sides. There were a couple of exceptions which you can buy the book to find out about, but the vast majority of them understood how much this warps american democracy. One of the things thats interesting to me, in the previous panel, the professor was talking about this risk of the one in three risk that a person who wins the popular Vote National doesnt become president. It struck me, what of the calling that a risk . If the Electoral College defenders are right and this is a system that is there for fora good reason and put there by the framers in the constitution and its been with us for more than two centuries, why is that a risk . Whats up the problem . The answer is pretty obvious, which is nobody feels that is a legitimate way to elect a president. Republicans dont feel if it could happen to them and democrats certainly havent felt it when its happened to them. What you find is campaigns understand this. They dont want to campaign in battleground states. They do it because it politically smart. They know how to spin. Theyve limited time, limited money and they are not stupid. They know they have to spend it in ways that maximize the chance of winning under the system we have right now. In contrast it yet this popular vote you would have a system in which, as all of the panelists have been saying, candidates would suddenly be freed to go to the places where the votes were. That doesnt just mean big cities. One of the interesting pieces of research that ive seen lately come from the National Popular vote, the people running the compact, thats been density of the last figures, and it uses what happens in battleground states right now as a proxy for a National Popular vote. We are all speculating on how would a National Popular vote election run. There is a good answer to that, which is we can see it now happening in battleground states. Battleground states are elections which everything vote counts the same and the person who wins the most, get the most votes wins. Thats what a National Popular vote is. Look at how to campaigns render elections in battleground states. They go everywhere. They come across the state. Every Campaign Manager i spoke to said this, this is just campaigning 101. You dont just live in the cities. You go everywhere. If theres 30 of the population lives in urban areas can you spend there 2 of your time there. If 25 live in rural areas, spent 25 of your time there. Its happened again and again and use it in every vatican state. Thats a pretty good illustration of what we would see with the popular vote election . Its not just where you would go and spend the dollars. Its i do with campaign. In our tribalizing, polarize e time theres no incentive to reach out to people on the other side. But if youre trying to get every vote and document moving into the rural areas, democrats would have an incentive to be more suited to the issues and the concerns of world voters. They will change the rhetoric and every possibly change some policies. Michael talked about california. We now have sort of National Republican campaign led by the president in a war against california, try to undermine everything californias doing. If youre out to get a a sizabe number of votes in california, you are not going to do that. It isnt just it was he going to Pay Attention to the states by campaigning and putting in money. You are going to change the we talk and change your policies at a time when he desperately need those changes. Michael, youre on tv all the time. How would the media, how would a change of the media covers campaigns . Thats a very good question because the media has various stress tests they go through to figure out where they want to send their people, and which states that want to concentrate the time. Very much the way campaign to do. You are looking at the value added. If im going to, am i going to spend time in north dakota when the candidate is just going there to do a flyover or a donor event . The answer is going to be no, they are not. But if that candidate is going to go there and campaign and spend time, what i think you would see is the media would have to adapt their strategies as well, because their goal is to follow the candidates and to report the news that they are making or not making. So i think youll see some change in how the on ground reporters do their job and where they go and the decisions that the editors are going to be making in terms of their assignments and where they sent them. This idea you now open up all 50 states as a voter playground is a fascinating and important one i think if we really believe that the system should allow for everyone to vote, and every vote to matter and every vote to count. You either believe that or you dont. This notion that candidates under National Popular vote would somehow concentrate their time in urban centers is just silly. Clearly, the person who says that or thinks that is never run a campaign or been a candidate. Youre not going to get votes if 50 of your population that youre going after is in one place and you leave the other 50 to your competitors, what you think is going to happen to you . You are not going to win because that 50 youre concentrating on is still split up, right . Between other candidate running. No candidate corners the market in every jurisdiction. Thats why we open this process up when you say to the voters, you are now in play. Those candidates will take note of that, in the media has to follow that. They will follow the script, followed with the news lines will take them and it will follow with the candidates begin to make some noise. If you get a republican candidate, sticking to the california example, who suddey feasible in the numbers and that yes, they are behind either competitive in california. You dont think the press will cover that story . They were safe its california, he will lose it in with. No, will cover that story. What happens . That then feeds the narrative downstream. Its the way the system is set up now. What do we anchor our presence elections on now . Two freegan states, iowa and New Hampshire. Your people writing stories that if you dont win iowa or New Hampshire your campaign is over. Tell that to the candidates who are running in South Carolina and running in nevada, running right now in places like california and florida. So the idea is to open the process up a lot more to engage the voters for sure but also to bring those other components of the process, the media and the political system in line with what the voters are doing. Brianna, you travel the country and talk to voters and young voters in particular. What are you doing on this issue in which communities are you think you think are most unrepresented the most . Traditionally it is communities of color and other marginalized groups that event and represent in our electoral process. These students of color feel it. They live in california. They think their vote doesnt matter. In texas which has traditionally been considered a safe state. So having that in mind you feel like sorry, everyone. You definitely feel as if these candidates dont really represent your values as far as candidates really focusing on battleground states if they focus on fringe voters in the battleground states that allow them to just capture a sliver of the margin so that with the coming electoral votes in that state. Whereas the future about the millions of People Living in california and texas as you would in a popular vote you would have to change the narrative of your candidacy. You wouldnt be able to went on a racist xenophobic agenda. He would have to care about the millions of voters that would contribute to your overall victory. Jesse, we were talking about some history backstage about in 2000 which i remember at the time was amazing that there was no violence after that contested election. That there was, everyone thought maybe it would flip, but al gore would become president but then bush would actually win the popular vote and we saw the flip of that. Then in 2004 it was important for the bush team to win the popular vote, which they did. Question is, do you think donald trump is going to focus on the National Popular vote in 2020 . Well, depends what day you ask him. Trump has said both that he has won the popular vote, that he would have won the popular vote if millions of illegal voters have not cast their ballots, and that he would win the popular vote if he campaigned differently. I dont quite know what Donald Trumps position is on the popular vote today. I do think going back to what jim quoted at the beginning of this event, he tweeted the Electoral College is a disaster for democracy on Election Night 2012. You know when he tweeted that it was around 7 p. M. And the reason he tweeted it is because it looked briefly as early returns are coming in like barack obama was when when the Electoral College and mitt romney could win the popular vote. All it takes is a hint that this might flip for people to get very upset about the system we have now. I think what youre referring to is the 20002004 election is instructive. There is reporting from before the 2000 election that that election as bob just said was looking like it might go the other way. It was a lot of reporting that might get split election in 2000 before the vote that is going to go the other way. People thought george w. Bush would win the popular vote and lucy Electoral College. Theres reporting george w. Bush, lease some people in his Campaign Working on a strategy to essentially do what the hamilton electors didnt weigh 16, which is a public bush, a pr blitz to get the electors to go with the popular vote winner and save Electoral College is an anachronism from the 18th century and what we need is a president was been elected by all the people. Obviously they didnt have to take that route given how it turned out but then four years because they lost the popular vote, the Bush Campaign team became perhaps the only campaign in American History that actively sought to win the popular vote. No of the campaign probably ever has or ever should vote for the popular vote as long as those not the rules. It would be politically crazy. The bush team understood the issue of legitimacy we weve bn talking about and understood how important was for him to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the country after what happened in 2000. He ended up winning by 3 million votes which is roughly Hillary Clintons margin in 2016. They managed it. Can you make one other point . Sure. This goes with the others have been saying. Norm and michael were referring to california. Its a great example. California, people know how many people vote for donald trump in california . Four and half Million People voted for donald trump in california. Not a single one of them mattered on election day. The real election day which was december 19 when the electors cast their ballot because of the winner take all will which is what came up in the last session is really at the heart of the inequity thats greeted by our current Electoral College system. 4. 5 Million People is more than Hillary Clintons entire national margin if none of the people counted. Its important to remember how many more people this is not from the perspective of campaigns but from the perspective of turnout and evolvement, how many more people would feel involved and would feel like a mattered under a popular vote. Rihanna was mentioning communities of color where right now brie anna door huge swaths of people just dont count for the south, africanamerican voters thought the south havent seen their vote vast majority have not seen the vote represented by single electoral vote in generations. All of a sudden you have popular vote and black voters in the south would matter just as much as white voters in wyoming in north dakota and west virginia. Its completely alters the calculus of how the campaign to that point, which is really the heart of it is, when youre looking at it from a candidates perspective, your entire engagement changes because 4. 5 million voters out of california are not added to a bigger number that youre tryina gold youre trying to reach. Those voters on the ground have something, if you will, some skin in the game. We all know the frustration of west coast voters pick elections are called just as her getting off from work. Their incentive to go home and have dinner. Because anything after 5 00 doesnt matter. Theres still another three hours worth of pulte ongoing on, and a candidate wants those voters took a nap but the voters are like, from what works youre not going to win my state. My vote doesnt count. It doesnt matter. Im going to dinner, right . All of a sudden its a different ballgame. Now youve got a turnout machine room five to 8 p. M. In california, if youre a candidate running because all of a sudden now youve got the early return. You know its coming. We get our returns at noon, we get our returns at five. We have a sense of whats going on on the east coast. The west coast is a second thought, if considered at all in most cases. Ive talked to enough california legislator and candidates to know, take if they are republican, whether day is like on election day and what their turn off models are like the they can to stop after 5 00. By tapping into every precinct in the country. That taps into general election. I need that voter that goes to dinner who might have voted for me, but now is going to following up on the question to jessie. Donald trump is the first president ever who has only focused on a base and reinforcing a base and not caring about the nation as a whole or trying, even to make a pretense to broaden that out. Believing that the distortions of the Electoral College give him leverage. In three or four days hes going to minneapolis to do a rally. Hes going to ilhan omars district and now it will be the rodent infested kind of rhetoric that weve seen before. There are two goals here. One is to put minnesota in play. Which he nearly won. Came close to winning by appealing to the rural southern part of the state and the iron range, my home state. If we were looking at a National Popular vote, i think the whole premise of his rhetoric and his policy would have to adjust if we assume that hes focused not just on making more money while hes president , but winning reelection. So youre going to be careful about what kind of rhetoric you use in minnesota because you may turn out even more of those voters who are appalled by that rhetoric. To go back to california, we have these devastating forest fires and trump basically dismissed it, but also made sure that federal aid did not go to california. Youre not going to do that if youre out to maximize your vote in california because you need it to compete for the National Popular vote. So, it changes an awful lot of the calculus of not just candidates, but a president , if you suddenly have to look at the world in a completely different way. Right. And that brings up a really interesting perspective so youre talking about minnesota. We know that in 2016 michigan and pennsylvania were two of three top states that helped solidify the candidacy for the president and with that perspective in mind we know that those states are over 80 white. So, individuals, if we switch to natural popular vote would have to change their narrative how they go about courting diverse voters so that way, theyre really appealing to the middle and moderate. Not just very extreme individuals representative of one demographic. You mentioned something that i think is key to really appreciate and put into context and that is the behavior not only of candidates, but certainly incumbent president s, when it comes to where theyre going to put federal resources in a president ial campaign cycle. So during the obama years we had a hurricane that came into the gulf and the posture of the administration was one as were going to watch it, were going to watch it, were going to watch it, and then it shifted to the western coast of florida and damn it, weve got to do something about it, make sure there are resources available, why . Because the Battle Ground state of florida was much more important in making sure that you let the people on the ground know weve got your back and cover you than maybe the folks in louisiana or elsewhere. So how these resources get allocated is also a factor. Its not just the vote, per se, but its also the dollars, federal dollars and how theyre spent in president ial cycles by incumbents and the promises that are made by candidates that are running to sort of let people know, ive got your back, im with you. So whether it is federal aid on education, no child left behind was a program out of the bush years that was Medicare Part d. Medicare part d, who was that for . All right . So, youve got you know, you can begin to contextualize and understand how it fits together and doing this in a way that makes it more competitive. Exposes the entire country to those very same resources, and the very same level of scrutiny that candidates give a florida or an ohio, an iowa, whatever, he think you do a big service for the people of the country as a whole. Something that i think thats an excellent point and i think we could go down the list of not i mean, disaster declarations are particularly upsetting, right . Because as someone said on the previous panel, this is a time when americans are actually in need and sometimes maybe their lives are in danger, so playing politics with that is particularly outrageous. But, even just in the normal course of business, federal grants, president ially controlled funding, and even in some cases, legislation, which is its a little harder to pin down because obviously there are a lot of factors going into why any bill moves through and passes congress, but the Medicare Part d example is one. George w. Bush takes that up and gets it passed, you know, its, you know, last i checked, republicans werent fans of massive government entitlement programs, but who does Medicare Part d help . It helps elderly people who need medicine and need access to affordable medicine and where do those people live . A lot of them live in florida. Both parties do this. Its not a republican game. What was one of president obamas first major actions to bail out the auto industry, where is the auto industry, you know . The steel tariffs, you can just go down the line and you really find a fascinating correlation, lets say, we wont immediately say caw causation, but the correlations between what the president s decisions they make and where the Battle Ground states are. This isnt to say that isnt legitimate needs or doesnt matter. The overbearing on those parts of the country, but its a distortion in america democracy, if president s looked at the nation as a whole and as a place that they needed to win support everywhere, the decisions about where money went would be more in line with what the nation needed as a whole. Michael, youre a republican. Youre not a fan of the president. Do republicans say to you privately, why do you support this . Were not going to win the National Popular vote . This has happened to the last five and weve come out on the winning end. Not talking about it. Not really, its something that i think in particular, when you look at recently and certainly working with and being involved with the folks with National Popular vote and being in the room with republican legislators who are really, you know, consciencely looki looking at this and looking at it not from just a minority position, but being in the majority. Because they the smart one knows demographically and otherwise how the country is changing. We want to be competitive. We want to be able to win in places that we once won, like a california, certainly, states in the west. And as you look at, you know, just in areas close to me, virginia, which was a solidly red state. Now its not. Youve got to look at these realities to see, well, how do we you know, compete on this new Battle Ground, if you will, thats being formed. So a lot of republicans, i mean, you do have some who, you know, do the but for. If we had this bill clinton would have been president or whatever, or, you know, Hillary Clinton would have been president , but that argument really doesnt stand up. Folks start looking through such a narrow prism and it surprised me because i taught they would at first, but thats not been my experience and my conversation with them. They see it as a way to sort of address what is coming changes in the country and you know, looking at the idea, yeah, they would like everybody in their community to vote as well because that ultimately benefits them. I mean, its the one thing that ive always said to republicans when i was a county chairman, state chairman, National Chairman is never be afraid of the voter and never be afraid to put out the policies and the values and the positions that you believe in because thats ultimately what theyre going to gravitate towards. And so, all the machinations wont changes the requirements, you still have to talk to voters and make a case. You can do what you want with gerrymandering, do what you want to Voter Suppression and do all of tease things, but at the end of the day, you still have to confront those voters. And particularly at the state level, they see that and are coming around to this idea of elevating this idea of a National Popular vote. So in 2012 after the republican loss, Reince Priebus, the chair of the Republican Party at the time commissioned his famous autopsy, quite a word to use for your party, turns out in some ways to be a more accurate word, but remember that that was basically, oh, my god, were losing the demographic battle, weve got to change. We need to do something on immigration. I think it was an inaccurate or inadequate response in that autopsy. It was basically past the comprehensive immigration bill and then were fine, but its Reince Priebus to chief of staff for donald trump ripped that autopsy up and put in the waste basket. Imagine if you have to compete as a National Party for the popular vote with a different set of circumstances where youre going to have to compete much more widely. Youre not only going to push for a comprehensive immigration bill, but youre going to change the rhetoric you use about immigrants. Youre going to have to look at a broader range of policies that you can change so that you can compete for minority votes and it alters the landscape in far more ways than i think weve been thinking about. If youre going to compete as a National Party, youre going to have to actually focus on solving problems for people in the country instead of inciting discord and division. So, it, i think, if were looking at a panacea, and there is no panacea for what is an enormous Cultural Divide and now something thats much worse, but if were looking for something that can alter the landscape of our politics and our governance, this is where you start. Right. Im sorry, go ahead. And to really build off what my two copanelists mentioned, we would actually see a policy agenda thats more reflective of our communities so that way youre not just again, focusing on extreme voters that would put you across the edge in michigan and pennsylvania, you would actually see real policy reform that focuses on the everyday citizen you see, you know, more people carrying about gun violence, more people focusing on immigration, focusing on Border Security or a way to stop separating our families because thats what your base is made of. You would have a larger base to cater to you except to see a few voters that are representative of the United States as a whole. And i think, you know, what all of this points to is two things. One is, the answer to those republicans who say, oh, well, we would lose a popular vote is, yes, if you continue down this path of sort of a racist, xenophobic party, you will, you will. The country is changing and youre aiming for a smaller and smaller slice of it. But as all the panelists are saying, thats not the only direction you can go in and in fact, a popular vote forces parties into a broader to approach a broader consistency and i think thats the key here, which is that the way that we select our president s and the way that we designed our electoral system shapes the kind of candidates that we get. So its not just policy, its candidates and you would not end up with certain types of candidates who werent able to speak to a broader coalition of people, on both the left and the right. It looks very we look very divided right now, but i think there are candidates in both parties who could speak a lot more effectively to a much broader swath of americans if they had to. If thats what the rules required. I think thats an important part because when you look at, for example, youve seen the conversation right now. The democrats are going through their primary and so you have, you know, a great pressure within that primary system right now between the more progressive candidates, bernie sanders, elizabeth warren, and the more quote, traditional democrats, even folks like a Kamala Harris and a Pete Buttigieg to some extent, but certainly joe biden and amy klobuchar. So you have this sort of tension, and so one of the effects, i think, which im very curious about in terms of how it ultimately plays out and i think it will play out this way, is our primary system will change, too. Because our primaries, right now are geared toward the lowest common denominator because the parties know only this much of our entire voter pool is going to show up and vote. So youre driven by that energy, driven by those positions, right, that are, you know, maybe antiimmigrant or wanting to take away private health care. So, you have this system in which everything is forced through this very, very narrow tunnel in a primary and youve got to open up and you see the candidates trying to pivot and back stroke and swing and move to sort of deal with a broader electorate which is now focusing and youre going to do what with my health care . And what did you say about immigrants . And so it becomes something i think where a candidate now running for National Office and i think it will be true for statewide offices as well, government and other officials, will pay more attention to how they make that case, because right now, our candidates make the case for iowa, New Hampshire, nevada and South Carolina. Right . Under this system, to make the case for all over 46 states and let people know, yeah, im coming up to california next week, so i hear you. Im going to be in missouri after that, im going to be in tennessee and they become wellrounded, they become better versed. Youll get a lot of bubble up from the state level issues so its not just california sort of being the leading edge in policy and change at the state level. So, i think overall, it will refashion the way candidates not only behave in terms of getting votes, but how they behave in terms of addressing issues. Were going to open up questions for five minutes. Along those lines, john mccain, he said ethanol was a joke and that didnt help him in iowa, and he finished fourth in iowa, but that was the beginning of his comeback and that can affect candidates. Jesse, you mentioned back stage there was a vote in Congress Many decades ago on this. Where do you see this movement and give us a history of it. You know, one of the things thats remarkable, we think of this as a very partisan issue just as many Everything Else in america, but it hasnt been for most of American History, theres been no partisan valance how we should elect the president. Its remarkable support going back to the constitutional convention. The most influential members of the convention in philadelphia wanted a popular vote for president. All right, thats james madison, james wilson, governor morris. These are the people who we generally identify with framing the essence of the constitution. They wanted a popular vote, they couldnt get it. A lot of reasons for that, which i wont go into here, but you know, including slavery, including the fight at the time between smaller states and bigger states, which wasnt as big a fight as you might think, but it was one. And then a few other concerns about what people could actually understand or know or learn about the candidates for National Office. Going up and through what bob was referring to was the effort in the 1960s at the height of the civil rights movement, most people dont remember this, that this happened, but there was a very concerted effort to abolish the Electoral College and replace it with a National Popular vote starting in the mid 1960s. In 1969 the house of representatives actually passed the bill to abolish the Electoral College overwhelmingly, by 82 easily clearing the threshold for an amendment. It got to the senate. It looked like they might have the votes in the senate, too. The states were clearly on board. I think it was Something Like 80 of the public at the time wanted a popular vote for president. This is 1968, not 69. You know who bottled it up in the senate. Strom thurmon, jim eastman, and the same in the movement they blocked it until it died in the senate and never went anywhere, but at that time, it had the support of Richard Nixon, after he became elected president , it had the support of george h. W. Bush, who had been a congressman and later had the support of bob dole. This was not a partisan issue because people fundamentally understood that majority rule was the Central Foundation of democracy and i think that its unfortunate that all of the splits have gone in one direction, as i think professor wang point the out in the last session, it doesnt necessarily have to go that way and weve seen republican president s as recently as george w. Bush winning by a substantial margin in the popular vote. And i think Something Like since 2002, which is only, what, 17 years ago, 47 states have elected republican governors. Republicans dont have trouble winning popular votes, its, i think its a misunderstanding of how the incentive structures of our Current System have worked the way that campaigning happens and led to the types of candidates that we have to make everybody think that somehow republicans cant win a popular vote. I think thats actually a misunderstanding. We will open up for questions if you can raise your hand, and the mic will come to you. If you can just keep your question short and identify yourself. Hi, this is somewhat hypothetical. Given the current president s somewhat limited popularity in our country. If all of a sudden a popular vote went into effect for the 2020 election, do you think there would be more interest from the Republican Party in considering alternative candidates . Considering what was the last one . Considering alternative candidates . Presumably by that point, you know, the cutoff date upped the compact would be july. So you know, if it happened right around that time, then pretty much your primary season is done, but if it happens before that, the remaining states coming into the pack, lets say february or march during the legislative session. I dont know, youve got three candidates in there already. It certainly will change the dynamic of how they would run a little bit, given the window that they would have. I think, again, the question of how it would play out in a primary situation is a little bit grayer, i think, because we dont know how many candidates would get in, who would get out. How donald trump himself would articulate his campaign at that point. He has said that if, you know, there were National Popular vote in 2016, yes, i would have been in california. I would campaign differently. He recognizes the requirement that he would have to change out of the more traditional Electoral College model into a National Popular vote model in terms of a general election. What it would do on a primary, i think, that would be a matter of timing of when the compact is fulfilled and the states are in. Later in the process, clearly will have an impact on a primary. Earlier in the process it probably could. Either way i think that donald trump would campaign differently regardless. Hello, my name is carol balm. Im wondering if you could Say Something for the strategy for achieving enough states and also, what you see as the biggest obstacles to achieving the 270 electoral votes . So, you know, in writing this book, i spent a good deal of time with the people involved in the compact effort and they are broad mix of democrats and republicans who have been doing this for over a decade and they spent a huge amount of time going state to state and working with legislators and you know, its not convincing all of them, at least trying to reduce some of the knee jerk opposition to the compact. Theyve actually passed in several houses, i can be corrected on this some of their members are here today. Its passed in at least one house in several republican states, i think including oklahoma, im trying to think of the others right now, georgia, and one pour two others. Its, you know, there was a sense that before the split election in 2016, they were actually on the cusp of possibly getting it enacted in georgia, utah and arizona, in states that were sort of trending. Purple and their Republican Leadership there seeing, oh, you know, if we dont do this now, were suddenly on the wrong side of winner take all rules. And so, convincing people, convincing people in republican states, in republicanled states, im trying to avoid using red and blue because i think its a harmful way of conceiving of our public, only republicans or democrats, a purely an artifact of the rule. All states are purple states, but in states with a majority of republicans or Republican Leadership, how do you convince them this is a good thing and part of it gets back to your question, which is this sense of, oh, were going to lose the popular vote. Thats what everyone cares about in the end. People just want a system that he is going to help their candidate win. If you convince people its really up for grabs. If you go to a popular vote that its really up for grabs, i think you can start to win over the republican controlled states. It is a those last 74 electoral votes i think are going to be a much heavier lift than the with first one in 96. And i dont know if any of you have any other thoughts on how you how you convince a right now in this moment, how you convince republican lawmakers to adopt a compact that at least on the surface looks like something that would hurt them. I think, you know, at least in so many of my conversations with folks, one of the things that folks are cognizant of is the demographic changes that are occurring. And you know, states that were, for example, you know, comfortably red used that term. Certainly comfortably i guess republican control, texas, demographically, is changing. Republicans cant afford to lose texas. Just cant. Not under this Current System. Just, you lose texas there is no road map to 270. There just isnt. I dont the math doesnt work. So, all of a sudden, you have to have a way to look at, okay, whats the alternative in terms of being competitive in a demographically changing environment. Ive got to get my vote from someplace else. If my home is no longer the most reliable place to anchor my vote, and its now more competitive, and ive got to Start Building on these numbers. Ive got to get outside the box and thats what this forces you to do. You cant just stay in one place. You have to now look at how michigan and missouri and a Washington State and oregon and other places, where your numbers may not be that strong, but the numbers are enough there to add to what youre doing in texas and what youre doing in michigan and what youre doing in ohio, to sort of cobble together the president ial race the kind of success you need. And i think a lot more and more republicans are recognizing that, as you noted at the beginning of before the election turnout, the outcome of 2016, a lot of republicans, yeah, i think we need to get ahead of this curve, right . Well, the curve is still there. Youve still got to go around the curve. And what it did was forestall the inevitable. Because its still happening and states that were once relybly one party or the other are less so today. Right, and really, to tackle your question, i think its important to realize that in two of the past five president ial elections where weve seen this, theres been one party thats been successful. You know, in 2000. Bush one lost the popular vote in 2016. Trump won, lost the popular vote. I dont see this changing in need until it really comes back and its harmful. So, you definitely see it becoming a politicized issue where democrats have really lost this twice now and are, you know, a little bitter realizing its something that needs to change and i think you might have to have a loss like that on the other side to really push people to the National Popular vote. A couple more questions. Hello, Jeffrey Jacobs at grass roots and time im wondering if we consider the National Public voters, beta test before would he do a constitutional amendment would that be an easier path to pass a constitutional amendment . No. No. [laughter] just real quick, the constitutional amendment process is messy and i think given the Political Climate that were in today it would open up a lot of doors that we dont need to open and create a lot of distraction. What i love about this process is it is direct. Its going to the state legislators, its what our Founding Fathers intended us to do because they empowered those states individually to set the stage for how they want to elect the president. If my state decides in this upcoming session that in order to get the electoral votes for maryland, you need to stand in the middle of, you know, the Annapolis Harbor and recite the constitution, thats what you have to do. All right . Thats what you have to do because thats what the state wants you to do. Thats perfectly okay. So to be able to go in and negotiate and have this conversation directly with the states is cleaner, its more direct, and its no different than the state that decided we want to hold the lottery, powerball and we all entered into that compact together and we abide by the rules that we set in place that someone who plays in maryland contributes to the winner in oregon and vice versa. So, that to me is an arrangement among the states thats a lot cleaner and i think its consistent with what the founders intended. I will give you one caveat though. Were dangerously close to having a call for a constitutional convention. Im scared to death because we wont have a hamilton or a benjamin franklin. We will have a sean hannity for a moore. And if there were a constitutional convention, that would be ease letter youd have to get three quarters of the state to go along with it, but put it out there in a way that would not be achievable otherwise, but pray that we dont have that venue. And i just want to add to that question. This came up in the previous panel, but its really important. I just want to reiterate it. The National Popular vote compact is using the constitution as it was designed to be used. This is not, you know, people may have heard on the last panel saying lets do it the right way. Im not sure what that means, the right way. Nobodys complaining that winner take all states like winner take all rules is not the right way. But states adopted those the same way that we would adopt the compact. Which is were deciding for ourselves how were going to allocate the electors. The other point made, this is how every major advance in the american franchise, or virtually every major advance, it happens at the state level first, right . Giving women the vote, giving poor whites the vote. You know, voting for the senate. Voting directly for senator. All of these things bubbled up from the states and then became entrenched in the constitution, but thats how it happens and that seems to me a fairly natural way to go. Not every state is a winner take allstate. Two states are not. Theyve decided differently. So, that again is a consistent with our constitution and thats the right way for those two states to do it differently in how they allocate electoral votes for anyone who happens to win them. So this idea that theres a right way or a wrong way is inconsistent with what the founders had intended. The right way is the best way the states decide individually that they want to do this. The one thing i would add to this is if we get close and we finally are at that point, were going to have to focus on making sure that there are not faceless electors. That you know, its been a minor problem up till now, every once in a while youll have somebody who has pledged to vote for the president ial candidate who won the state, who doesnt do that. Many states misdemeanor fines and the like, but you could see some mischief done and we would hope that when we reach that point, states would pass implementing legislation as well, that would ensure that when the state orders the electors to vote for the winner of the National Popular vote that they actually do it. Got a few minutes left. And we could get one more question in. All right. Thank you. Yes. Oh, thank you very much. Pam berg with the women league of voters. And coming at it from a different angle and see if this is an option for people emotionally attached to the Electoral College. What happens if we just get rid of winner take all and we tell, and the states adopt, hey, if its 60 republican, 40 democratic thats your electoral thing and then, if you cant reach the threshold, is the threshold of 270 in law . Can we not change it . Is that just an alternative option . Well. Thank you. Thats a really good question. I think you know, again, as my copanelists have been mentioning that the constitution with its article 1, section 2 clause gives the states the power to decide how the Electoral College is given per state. So you have 48 states that decided winner take all. Two states decided to award it some other way. So essentially it would be just going back to the states whether its a National Compact or some other way to determine what is the best way, what is the most democratic process of awarding these Electoral Colleges so that way, our citizens living in the state have their voices heard and 270 is just an important number. Well hear it rose to 270, the map to 270, its just a majority number. There are several lawsuits underway right now to effectuate what youre asking for base basically to get the courts to rule that winner take all is a violation of the 14th amendment equal protection clause as well as other like First Amendment and a few other constitution l a provisions, this actually happened, by the way, delaware brought this lawsuit back in 1966 against new york, saying this isnt fair. You give all of your electors in one candidate or the other, you completely wipe us out. We dont count. When new york has something, 2029 electors and delaware has 3. This is something else, the small states think theyre being protected by the Electoral College with winner take all and the small states dont matter. The idea that youre bringing up has been in the mix for a long time. For decades. The lawsuits were brought as a class action, two in republicanled states and two in democraticallyled states. Theyre not making much progress. The court threw out the 1966 lawsuit without hearing it and we dont know what the justices thought about it at the time, but that answers your question that this is an effort thats underway. Look, theres an important caveat here. After obama won pennsylvania, which of course at that point was quite democratic, had a republican governor, republican legislature, the legislature in part because of the partisan gerrymandering and they were making a move to change to an allocation by Congressional District, which was a deeply gerrymandered Congressional District model and it was all to ensure that a republican could win even if the voters moved in a different direction. So, if this happened in a few states, it actually could be a deeply distorted model and i would be very, very cautious about moving in that direction. And you question about proportional, whether everyone should just move to proportional voting is an interesting one and its more complicated than it sounds because if you cant divide electors into fractions, it actually could be a very skewed result itself, dividing elections and and you get into rounding and all kinds of stuff. Yeah, right. Again, i just go back to the founders in their which is come, however conceived have put in place a system that we all understand the history and the purpose of the Electoral College and the question for us today is how do we work within that frame work short of what you were saying about a constitutional convention, and the states seemingly have worked out a way to do that and we enter into bilateral, trilateral, multilateral relationships and agree this is how we intend to behave and to perform in an electoral process for the presidency and i think that that im much more willing to trust that than to throw it open to a national convention, get into proportionality and all of these other things that i think the states themselves would have a hard time saying yes to. But this might work the same way that the 17th amendment did, which is it bubbles up from the states and then you get a constitutional amendment and you can imagine if we actually had the popular vote compact enacted, that you might see politicians saying, you know, this is too complicated. A cleaner way given that voters expressed this is to have a constitutional amendment to create a National Popular vote. And i think its worth mentioning to break it down that the Electoral College was brought about because our Founding Fathers didnt trust everyday people like you and me to vote for president. And the democracy is claiming voice to vote and directly elect our president. This was a fantastic discussion. Please thank our panelists for joining us and i hand it back to jim. [applaus [applause] thanks, everyone. And so the next on our program, Nellie Gorbea yes, you guys have to leave. [laughter] secretary of state of rhode island. She was first elected in 2014 and then reelected in 2018. She is the first and maybe the only, but certainly the first hispanic ever elected to statewide office in new england. Nellie gorbea. [applaus [applause] well, good morning, everyone. So its up to me to, you know, wrap this all up. Well, thank you, james glassman, of course, steve clemens, bob cusak, matt shahpenka, everybody that put together this conversation together today. You know, im a real big believer that our best policy Solutions Come when we get together and have a variety of perspectives, backgrounds, and perspectives around the making table and this is a particularly important conversation on a key evoluti key evolutionary in our democracy. I believe that government should be accountable and all people believe their voices should be heard. I was elected to rhode island in 2014 and i ran because i wanted government to work for everyone. Now, as a latina or a lan latin x is now its determined now. And u. S. Democracy, wonderful in many, many ways is a work in progress and always has been so. And sadly despite the work done over the past two centuries, the feeling that government can work for everyone is missing in many parts of our country right now. Except for in a handful of states, the Battle Ground states. Most people think their vote doesnt really matter in the president ial race. Thats why i think were seeing this ground swell of support thats been growing for the National Popular vote interstate compact. Polls show that twothirds of americans want the president to be elected by popular vote. That desire has sparked several efforts over the years from dr. John kosa and the National Popular vote group to common cause and of course, making every vote count. And while these groups may have different versions how a popular vote system would work and i know the Current Panel talked a lot about some of the differences and approaches how we might get there, i think we can agree on why this reform is needed and ill venture out on that one. For me, the most striking argument for the popular vote comes from our young people. Now, engaging in young voters, ive made that a key part of being secretary of state. In the 2018 election, in fact, Rhode Islanders saw a 64 increase in 18 to 20yearold voters, which in part mirrored something that was happening already in our country. Now, one way that ive been able to engage young people in voting is through High School Class elections and this comes and demonstrates how our democracy has to work. Thats where small sizes are a really big asset because i get to literally travel all over the state, and in those travels, as i visited dozens of high schools, you know, im able to do things like put their classmates names on real ballots and have them vote on real voting machines. So they get this very personal experience of what it means to vote. And you can tell that theres a certain joy in seeing their names or the names of their friends on the ballot, and being able to do this thing and they know that their vote will have consequences. Somebodys going to be really psyched the next morning, or that afternoon and some are being really depressed. And so, with this, we try to introduce this concept that voting matters. Now, as i go through this, and when we have a conversation about elections in the u. S. , its more times than i care to say that this question of the Electoral College will come up as im talking to young people. They want me to explain how it can be that after so much encouragement to vote when it comes to the president of the United States, their vote doesnt matter. Its not like what we were showing them in the classroom. Plain and simple, the Electoral College makes it so much harder to make it feel that voting and civil engagement is really important to democracy. And unfortunately, a lot of these kids parents feel like their votes also dont matter, in a deeply blue state like, small state like rhode island, people do feel ignored by president ial candidates, which is why rhode island passed a National Popular vote interstate compact in 2013. And support for the compact is growing, there are many other states joining this. When rhode island, 142 votes and now its over so were approaching the critical moments where we might have the 270 electoral votes needed for it to take effect. That means that were at an important point right now where we need to come upfront and discuss matters. One, we need to first and foremost get across the finish line and make the popular vote a reality and two, we need to figure out how were going to count the votes when that happens and i say that because as the secretary of state, how were going to count the votes is of particular concern to many of us. So i think one of the most important messages when it comes to getting this compact passed is that the popular that the popular vote is not about partisan politics, i know, everyone can laugh now. That was sort of a joke, but in its time, but it shouldnt be. This is not really about the 2016 elections, this is not a response to that. Its been in the works for much longer. Support goes back to many, many years. In 2007, the Washington Post did a poll and found that there was support for a popular vote among all voters. Like 78 in 2007 of the democrats were in favor. 60 of republicans. 73 of independents were all in favor of this. And theres even a gallup polling that goes back to the 1940s showing the majority supports the popular vote. Whats the holdup . I think weve heard that and when it comes down to, and i say this as a mom, change can be really scary for people. I get it. You know, here is something to keep in mind though. When somebody tells you how can we change the structures of government, hour our democracy was designed to change at the time. Just look at the constitution. It was meant to be a living document. There are reasons over the last two centuries where its been amended and i know we were talking about not necessarily amendments, but theres been 27 times and counting when its been amended. Because the constitution was designed and our form of government was designed to evolve as our country grew and changed. Now, i know that critics of the compact will say that well, this is not right now a constitutional amendment and i hear that. But the winner take all way in way we allocate the electors was also not in the constitution and it was adopted later by 48 states and states are free to do that, of course. They can also enter into arrangements like the compact. Why . Because the constitution gives state the freedom to change and evolve with the times. And by the way, you know, and there was just a reference here to the 17th amendment, in 1913, as recently as 1913, we changed the way that we had u. S. Senators elected instead of appointed. So reminding people that our democracy is always evolving is a really important part of this conversation. And actually, thats a real positive. Those changes have led us to a time of universal suffrage where everyones voices are supposed to be heard equally. Weve moved from a time when all men, i should say all land owning men of a certain race were created equal, to all citizens are created equal. Unfortunately, that equality is not reflected in our Current System using an Electoral College. A National Popular vote is the next logical step in the evolution of american democracy. That brings us to the question at the heart of this conference, what would be different if american used the popular vote to elect our president and how would we count those votes . Well, we may not have all the answers yet and i know there are different proposals how the mechanics would work. And im not here to go one way or the other on these, but to point out how in the case of rhode island, some of the questions that this would raise. Throughout my life, as i was saying before, i found that by having these conversations where we dont necessarily agree on everything, we can find a way through. Those conversations were really important, so, as a secretary of state, im at the crossroads of this National Vote conversation. Im called on to support elections that count votes in a fair and impartial way. The national pop already vote, interstate compact raises some interesting questions about the duties of my office. Right now, under rhode island law, i collect vote totals from all of our cities and towns and add them up and i certify the electors from the parties. And i send them through the archivists to washington d. C. Under federal law. If the compact becomes effective. Ill still be responsible for certifying the votes in my state, of could,but each secretary of state would also have to include the national count of all votes. That means ill have to send Rhode Islands results to all the other Member States and theyll have to do the same. That sounds simple, but what about nonMember States . If theyre not bound by the compact and dont share the results with Member States, how do we make the process work . Its been proposed that we create a centralized place where nonmembers could deliver their votes in a timely manner, that means when i send my vote totals to the United States. I could then look at what over ear secretary of state sent. I would add up the votes for the president ial nominees in every state and the one with the biggest number would be a National Vote winner and would i then name as electors, from rhode island, knows nominee won the National Vote and even if that person did not win the plurality in rhode island. Under the compact, im required to and this is in quotes, treat as conclusive an official statement containing the number of popular votes in a state for each president ial slate made by the day established by federal law for making a states final determination conclusive. End of quote. This means that if noncompact states make an official statement of its popular vote total, im required to accept at that total as correct. I then have to count it when determining the National Popular vote, but the compact is not binding on as i mentioned before, on nonMember States. So to make this work without a federal mandate, we are going to need a twostep process. Every secretary of state will have to provide me and every other secretary of state with their official statement of vote totals in time for us to take a look at all the votes and add them up about of we appoint the electors. Everybody is with me, right . The second problem is what do we do about rank Choice Voting . Thank you, maine. In other words, what about maine . How would i determine what counts as a vote for president in maine where voters would be ranking their preference for president in order . Well, maine should design that. Thats where the National Popular vote interstate compact requires when it stays that i, as secretary, must treat as conclusive an official statement containing the number of popular votes in a state. So i wouldnt be getting into maines business, i would accept maines statement to the greater country. Those are some of the issues that came up at the annual meeting of the National Association of secretaries of state in new mexico this past summer, it was, shall i say, a very conspiratored debate. Theyre conversations that are going to continue to keep bringing up because we need to be ready if and when the compact becomes effective. Thats also why events like this are so important, to draw more voices into the conversation, more perspectives and more backgrounds so we can figure this all out. In rhode island, we have a long history of thinking carefully about important issues. We were the first colony to declare independence and the last of the 13 states to ratify the constitution. We thought carefully about the National Popular vote interstate compact. We think its best for all americans, even if it means a popular republican, in my case im a democrat, right . Winning the National Vote from electors, from a deeply blue state like rhode island. The bottom line, Rhode Islanders feel ignored by the Current System and many states feel the same. If all votes counted equally in a president ial race no matter where people live, candidates would have to campaign for every vote everywhere, there to be advertisement in local papers, far and beyond what there is right now, on local tv and radio and throughout local media, and open, get out the vote offices everywhere, by candidate. That would be a welcomed change from the Current System where almost all the money goes to a few controlling states, if you will, in the process. Having more americans feel like their vote matters is a big win for democracy. No matter who they vote for, voting is woven into the fabric of our country. Im proud that rhode island has adopted the compact and i encourage other states to do the same. Its clear that americans want their voices heard with a National Popular vote. Now, lets just figure out how to get it done. Thank you. [applaus [applause] thank you so much. I think one of the things that you were emphasizing, madam secretary, was the fact that this is going to happen, its moving, and as you said, there was that debate, discussion at the National Association of secretaries of state, and i thought it was really important that you encouraged events like this one. I mean, we there are details that have to be worked out and we need to talk about it, we need to debate it, discuss it. Let me just hit three highlights. We had just a terrific group of people up here. I thought its just in my personal experience, trying to convince the senate, the state senate in connecticut, what jesse said was so important, that there is a gut feeling that youre not really legitimate if you dont get the popular vote. You know, the Connecticut Legislature was this Connecticut Senate was divided evenly in the end we won that vote 2114 and i think that very simple argument was tremendously important. People understand this in their gut. Second thing i wanted to highlight was something that norm said that if were looking for changing the landscape of your policy and government, this is where you start. I think thats absolutely true and then finally, sam wang said, were building a democracy to last for another 200 years, and i think all of you in this room are really on the cusp of that. You are helping to build a democracy thats going to last another 200 years. So i want to thank Katie Gardner and the hill team for just a great job today. Thank reed hunt, who is our the chairman of making every vote count whose idea this was and especially thea cohen for putting this altogether and thank you all for being here. [applaus [applause]. [inaudible conversations] the house will be in order. For 40 years, cspan has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and Public Policy events from washington d. C. And around the country. So you can make up your own mind, created by cable in 1979, cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of governme government. The u. S. Senate is about to gavel in on this thursday. Senate lawmakers will debate and then vote on nomination of Justin Walker to be a judge on the u. S. District court for western kentucky. The senate also continues work today on 2020 domestic federal spending. We do expect the chamber to recess in about 30 minutes so lawmakers can attend a Memorial Service at the capitol for maryland congressman Elijah Cummings who died last week. His funeral will be in baltimore. Now to live coverage on cspan2. The reverend black will lead us in prayer. The chaplain let us pray. Precious lord, spirit of light and life, your mercies endure forever. Guide our lawmakers through the turbulent waters of division and pessimism to your safe harbor of unity and hope. Keep theirea