the inspiring remarks. time for three questions from the corps cadets. we ask that you come down to the microphone located on the floor. >> good morning, senator. i'm cadet logan morris and vice president of society of libertarians. i would like to ask you what is the number oneissue facing america in the coming years and how can the republican party combat these issues. >> it's the debt. people say, oh, you're going to inherit the problem? it is, it's already a problem. the burden of our debt right now is costing 1 million jobs a year. some of you will serve in the military and have a position, 60% of you will be looking for jobs. there aren't enough jobs because of the burden of debt. there aren't enough jobs because of an over taxed and overregulated nation. the biggest problem of debt leads to loss of jobs. we correct it by a smaller federal government and larger private economy. >> thank you, senator. >> good morning, sir. cadet john fogle. you talked a lot about dwight eisenhower. and our first president, george washington was also military commander. but in the constitution, we believe that the military should be headed by a civilian. and how do you feel about the importance of the military service in presidents past and future? >> well, one of the things i mentioned is the more people we have of been in combat and the military service in the government, i think it's interesting that during those periods of time when people look at it, we were less likely to be involved in war. if you talk to some of our bravest soldiers, they're not eager for war. i think people involved in combat are more circumspect than those who have never fought. is it a prerequisite? i don't think it is. it's useful to have many people involved and the idea of having civilians an important distinction, even when we elect a general like dwight eisenhower, we elected him as a civilian. you see other countries led by generals, they're autocracies, totalitarian regimes so i'm worried about having an active duty military person. i think our tradition is good that we separate the civilians from the military. >> thank you, sir. >>. [ applause ] >> this will be our last question. >> senator paul, on the subject of holding the current administration accountable? do you think we should pursuit benghazi? and if yes, how much do you think there should be? >> yes. it's my opinion. and this is an opinion that needs to be supported by interviewing those involved. it is my opinion that i cannot believe that a military commander did not send reenforcements. i fully believe that in benghazi, a politician was involved, won't name any names. but i think someone was involved in that decision. there was a lot of discussion going on that night. there is some debate whether or not they could have gotten from italy, but there were soldiers in tripoli. in my understanding, i know a lot of you are from military families, if you've ever known someone involved, marine, army, otherwise, they go and rescue their dead, their wounded. there were people alive and fighting for hours upon hours. there were people in tripoli that could have gone. i don't believe that decision was made by a military person. i think it was ultimately made by a politician. they need to be interviewed, come in, the question needs to be asked, who was it that made the decision not to send forces to tripoli. to my mind, we never should have a commander in chief who's unwilling to send in troops for reinforcement or in the six-month period of time did not send adequate security when it was asked for repeatedly. to me, that should preclude you from ever holding office. >> thank you, senator. [ applause ] >> thank you, senator paul for coming to the citadel. as a token of our appreciation, we present you with something with a great deal of symbolism for this institution. that is the most identifiable icons. that concludes our program. please join me in one more round of applause for senator paul. [ applause ] >> i ask everyone to rise and remain in your places while our speaker departs. corps cadets, upon dismissal, return to the barracks for noon formation. >> carry on. >> thank you. >> tomorrow, live from california for remarks from president obama. he'll talk about immigration policy at a san francisco recreation center with live coverage scheduled to begin at 2:35 eastern here on c-span. this week on c-span, encore presentations of "q&a" beginning tomorrow with robin neagle. she talks about her recent book picking up which chronicles garbage election in new york city as she experienced it firsthand. here's some of our interview. >> the story is very new york focussed, but only in the particulars, the actual challenge of waste management is a national concern and simultaneously a deeply local concern. any city, any town, any municipali municipality, you have to answer the question, who's picking up the trash? and where does it go? so -- and the particulars here are not so different from cities in other parts of the country and other parts of the world. trucks, human labor, union issues, organizing routes. chicago just went through a radical transformation of how they organize the collection routes for the city. they used to based on the award organization. now it's the garbage grid. they had to roll it out carefully. they had to do it with forethought and consultation with the workers and the communities. it sounds like it's successful. those problems are hardly unique to new york. >> you can watch robin neagle tomorrow at 7:30 p.m. on c-span. part of our encore presentation of "q&a". >> mrs. nixon accompanied him. they noticed how mrs. nixon was looking at the package of cigarettes. the cigarettes had pandas on them. and the package, she was admiring that. she said i understand you also admired the pandas at the zoo. she said, yes, aren't they darling. he said, well, we'll make sure that you have pandas to go home with. it was important for her to uphold and support her husband. just her being there with so much goodwill and always at the end of the triples where a news reports would come out -- they would talk about the president this way, but they would always say what a wonderful job pat nixon did. >> first lady, pat nixon, monday night, live on c-span and c-span 3, also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> earlier this year, the bipartisan policy center created a commission on political reform to work on ways to end partisanship in government. former governors, cabinet secretaries, and members of congress. they had been travelling around the country to share some of their ideas. next, one of the discussions held in columbus, ohio. this portion focuses on the impact that partisan attitudes are having on elections. this is 45 minutes. >> so today here we have four experts on elections. two secretaries of state, chief election officers in two of our states. two prominent election lawyers. two republicans, two democrats. let me introduce them. let's begin. secretary state john huston, the first term as secretary of state here in ohio and previously served as the hoe hoe house of representatives. secretary of state mark ritchie of minnesota who is nearing the last year of his second term as secretary of state of the chief election official in minnesota. and to my immediate right, ben ginsberg who is a prominent lawyer at pat and bogs who has also been the general council and attorney for many republican candidates including the general council for the mitt romney campaign in 2012. we begin with a lot of expert teals. let's start with bob bauer, the one fact that i will pepper him with now is he and ben also chair a commission that the president has appointed to look at voting in america. if i wanted to make a joke of it, i would say there's a democratic lawyer and republican lawyer, they walked into a bar and talked about elections what would they agree on. what's your aim to see the country moving forward on a bipartisan basis. >> it was established under an executive order by president obama that specified some very specific areas involving impediments and rights to vote and ways of overcoming this em. there are a host of those. military voting access to the polls for voters lacking english language deficiencies, voting impediments. we heard a good bit about lines, how polling places force people to wait long periods of time before they can vote. a broad range of those that i think is fair to put under the category of electoral administrative issues. the way elections are run in a fashion that respects the voters and enables them to have the appropriate access to the polling place, and our charge, i think, is one that really does invite it by a partisan approach because it is focused on various ways and i think the commission to accomplish this -- various ways that just using the best practices and the best theories available across jurisdictions vote canning be facilitated as it should be for those who are eligible to vote. and whose access should be unnecessarily and inappropriately impeded. >> now i can turn -- you have the hearings. but you haven't put out your recommendations. i'm going ask you what you're going say at the end of the process. i heard a lot of issues. one being the registration issue. are there some thoughts that you have in the parties and how they are approaching this and whether this will work in this area? >> there's agreement among the parties that all eligible voters should be able to cast their ballots without any undue burdens to doing that. so within the context of administering elections on the state and local level, there are a number of things that we can look at. the way you're able to have your vote counted in the polling place, but you don't have to stand in a long line, that the registration process is open and accurate. and so i think we're finding as we travel around the country any number of areas of agreement that are not partisan issues that we can make improvements in the voting experience. >> just to reiterate we encourage your participation in the audience and on twitter. we're going to have a couple more questions. we'll turn to a twitter question in a couple of minutes. to give you fair warning. i mentioned the registration issue. voter registration is arguably a system that both the right and the left hate. some people say not enough are regist registered. 50 million or so are not on the registration rolls who should be able to be there or eligible. on the other hand, there are many, 25 million or so names that are inaccurate, duplicate people, wrong addresses. so both the accuracy and the access of this system as questions. you have suggestions, potential changes you're making in ohio. can you tell us a little bit about that. >> in ohio, there are millions and millions of dollars spent on registering voters. but that system needs to be modernized. electronic, on-line voter registration is something that's happening in other states that we'd like to see happen in ohio. it would make it convenient for voters that they could register in the palm of their hand literally. it would make it more accurate. the data we need that the voter would provide to make sure instantaneously only legally registered voters are becoming registered to vote in the state of ohio. it would save money. you no longer have to convert a paper file to a digital one and pay someone to do that. it would save millions in the process and it would be more secure. we could track from county to county to make sure voters aren't voting in multiple counties and we could track state-to-state to make sure they're not voting in more than one state. a modernization of our elections process that we need to do in ohio and across the nation so we can exchange that data and have a modernized system of elections in america that's becoming the democracy that we have. >> on the issue of voter registration, minnesota has a system that few states have. that is you could register the same day that you show up at the polls. can you say a little bit about how that system works in minnesota and other changes you might recommend either in minnesota or other states relating to making sure people are eligible to vote and on that registration list. >> i'm careful to let audiences know that some states, and north dakota would be strong, don't have voter registration. in fact, minnesota only had voter registration where students and soldiers lived is how we used to say it. but at some point in time politicians and candidate running for office wanted a list to target their mailings, their door knock, that kind of thing. voter registration evolved. when this came to a big debate in minnesota, elected officials wanted a list of voter, the governor opposed it. they said in the state of wisconsin for 20 year, wyoming had a system called same-day registration. maybe we should try that in minnesota. minnesota was the first state after wyoming. now there are 12 or 13 states. its's a simple system. it's a system that about 600,000 of our voters use to updade their address, that kind of thing. it's the system that is always referenced when we talk about why is minnesota always number one in terms of voter turnout, including the other states as well. it's a system that we know is built into the expectation. been very successful. we try to credit wyoming and say some states don't have voting registration. this modernization idea is the direction we need to go as a nation. lots of pieces that will bring all of the systems somehow to some compatibility. >> i'm going to ask bob a question. you heard testimony relating to this issue of people waiting in line or the capacity of elections. what have you been hearing? have you heard that the counties and states have adequate resources to deal with their problems? are there specific practical fixes we could make to improve the experience in terms of shortening lines or ability to get to the polls? the lines is what brought the commission to the public eye with the president. what are the things you're hearing before you make your final recommendations. >> we hear lines are a product -- they're because of a variety of factors, they can include, for example, the difficulties that are generated by voter registration current and noncurrent. they can be affected by the way the polling place is organized, for example, there are adjustments to the polling place that can significantly reduce the line. they're affected by resource consideration, inaccurate staffing of the polling place. so there is a whole host -- whole host may be overstating it. but theorys of potential problem that can contribute to the line. i think what we are hearing is that there are tools, managerial techniques and reallocation of resources that are possible that could significantly improve in the jurisdictions that experienced this line problem. as you said, this is an important point. the commission has not completed its work. and the recommendations have not been made. i'm not speaking for all of the speakers, but you hear identified a series of problems and answers to the problems to suggest this is indeed a fixable problem. >> so i think we're going to turn to our first twitter question. we have questions coming in from the audience, please keep them coming. i'm seeing a common theme here. so i'm going to combine and ask three questions that have come in. one of them coming in from twitter, from tracy from north carolina asks -- how can we redistrict to draw the lines more fairly and avoid supermajorities of either party. is it possible? basically with the use of technology that are very partisan where the outcome of the election is determined literally in the primary in most cases. and you send -- you send people of different political parties andologies to washington and say sit down and work out all of your problems. it's not working. the way we need to fix it, there are lots of ways to go about fixing it. the bottom line is you need to have compact districts, they need be competitive. they need to be done in a nonpartisan or bipartisan manner. i think bipartisan. i don't believe anybody who knows enough about redistricting is truly nonpartisan with the way they approach things. you have to have bipartisan approach. what i would like to see happen in ohio and why did the issue fail? the issue failed last time because the perfect let be the enemy of the good. what we need in ohio and what i like to see in a lot of states a bipartisan approach. what we had a bipartisan vote on in the state of ohio is a plan that would have seven members made up of the governor, the auditor, the secretary of state, two democrats from the legislature, two republicans for the legislature, a seven-member board, require a five-member supermajority that includes any plan that includes one vote from a member of the minority party. you prevent them from breaking up counties, you keep the districts compact. and by the very nature that they're competing against one another to make the most seats, you make them competitive because it's in everyone's interest to do so. if you do that, members of congress, members of the legislature, that are more reflective of the balance of a purple state like ohio or whatever state they're in that listen to the needs of the average voter rather than the extreme voices of the particular party they come from. >> if any of the other panelists want to weigh in on the broader question regarding redistricting. if we fix it, will that wipe away polarization? is that part of the problem? the senate is polarized, the american people are polarized. how effective would it be? part of the solution, a large part of the solution? what's youris mags on that? >> after done senate redistricting on a number of occasions, a few observations about it. not sure that the senate is a terribly less partisan place than the house today. if you're going to talk about redrawing the country, there are basic demographic trends that have taken place in the last four years which you have to realize is that populations have concentrated to live more with people who are similar to themselves. now the most obvious manifestation of that occurred in this last presidential election. president obama, who won overwhelmingly, only won about 22% of the counties in the country. only 22%. now 35 of the 39 counties with more than a million people were won by president obama which explains the margins, but that he only won 22% of the county tells you how concentrated the demographic is. democratic are urban. republican populations are spread over suburbs and rural areas. if you go and draw fair and competitive maps that are compact, you're going to have some challenges doing that if your partisan populations are that concentrated. in terms of the overall, we had two interesting experiments in 2012. california passed by initiative the fair risk redistricting commission in which the primary criteria to serve on the commission was that you had nothing to do ever with redistricting or politics. the map of california that came out in 2012 is virtually the same differences between republicans and democrats were the maps in place in 2000. and florida passed an amendment to the constitution, the fair districts initiative, that had all of the neutral geographic criteria and republicans are still overwhelmingly in control of the florida legislature just like the democrats in congress. so tonelly, the reforms can make the difference. but the practical polarization in the country is more deeply rooted than merely changing the criteria on redistricting is going to take care of, i think. >> just to emphasize his point about people -- like political views living in the same nabt, you don't live in the same nabt. >> we actually kind of do. >> this proves the rule. >> a point of agreement is both of you seemed to think that having a bistart s-- bipartisan approach. besting it would be more important than avesting it? is that fair to say? >> i don't believe redistricting reform its own is the solution. but i mentioned earlier it is the answer because of the world of campaign finance and special interest groups and everybody organizes around the outcome of these maps. and really have become very powerful in the primary process and the primary process with the system of redistricting like we have is the process, the outcome of the election, that's where it all happened. >> let me ask secretary ritchie and hope that bob or ben might join in in this question. we have a system in elections that is very decentralized. the states are important players. essential players. the localities have great differences in the way they administer elections. you have some thoughts about the federal role has been understated in some areas. can you share those with us? then i would love to hear a little bit from the two co-commissioners here about how they think elections are administers, how difficult that makes changing is? >> it's our best turnout in the 4 million adult voters, 1 million people still don't vote. so we think a lot about what can we do to address that? are there barriers? what's going on. i think in most jurisdictions around the country, its's been known but not well addressed that the major barriers to voting have been in front of those with physical disabilities and those in the military and overseas. so those two big categories, the voters have been, you know, since kind of left out if conversation until recently. one of the outcomes in the election in florida, the help america vote act, i don't know if it was seen as essential but it's forced local jurisdictions to have equipment with our voters with disabilities and transformed that process. has not fixed it completely. but that came from the federal government. that tackled the big issue. it took a long time to get movement to our military and other overseas vote earles. we tried to move things to the legislature. we had vetoes. it took federal action in the move act in the carmen act to get some progress at the state level for that constituency. so i bring that up only to say this -- when we look at making some changes, we have to be kma opportunistic. we have to see there's an opportunity and say, you know, here's something that could give us more of that standardization. that modernization, the cleaning up of the list, and be ready to do it. secretary of state, local election officials take a pretty strong position of the federalist system. the decentralization. keeping their power down at the most local level. but i think we know there are certain things that need more national attention including where will the money come from to modernize the system that's so technology dependent. so i feel like with ear entering the time of open conversation. we haven't had that openness until about now. >> you heard from the administrators who run l.a. county with millions and millions of voters and from people who run small jurisdictions. all are expected to administer the election laws. what are the challenges of running the system the way we do, and how might reform happen even in the world that's as divided as that? >> our experience is that election administrators, generally speaking, working often with depressingly limited resources do the best job they can. they face challenges, to be sure. and there are variations in certainly -- the variations in the way the election administratives structure in the different locales are organized. variations in culture or state or have an impact in the way elections were run. so there's no question that you have -- i wouldn't call it counting flowers bloom, but a diverse range of practices. as you mentioned, i think administrators hold to the position of decentralized administration. we're happy with how their federal system is to be sure. i do believe, however, and i think we have found that there is a great interest now in a conversation that takes place across the country in which the dad is thinking about how to run election is shared and there is support that states are giving one another. the conversations are taking place across boundaries. tremendous engagement with the commission purr opportunity to the presidential executive order. there is a moment of time you can take some of the issues that had such an impact on voters and you can withdraw it from the other controversy that is so familiar to the electors here, and you can find a willing audience across the country and all of the jurisdiction. there's an audience and a willing tons have this conversation. to take the best possible thinking and approval elections across the board. to conclude with, i would say there's a tremendous amount of agreeme agreement of what the problems are. they're centralized, there are organizations and process and culture, as the same time, there are on issues like lions or military voting and technology and upgrading. there are problems that come to all jurisdictions that they're eager to participate in a conversation. >> so we're getting great questions from you, from the audience. we want to encourage you to keep sending them in via twitever. >> then generally on the issue of perhaps you're going around the country thinking of best practices and practical solutions, there are things that might ensure people. >> i think he's right. he's done a remarkable job here in ohio. we want the desire to have accurate voter risk. on the right, it's to stop issues of voter fraud, on the left, it makes it easier for people who should be allowed to vote to vote. you don't have nearly as polling places problems. so the updated voter information is absolutely correct. kansas compact and the ark project are both designed to let states look across their list. one of the things happening is on-line voter registration where individuals are filling out their forms instead of making it about a thrice over paperwork project. >> representative from texas? >> thank you, john. my question is about the federal involvement in reform and registration changes in your state. do you feel like states should be able to deal with this themselves uniquely? because you understand your pop yue laws better than the federal government. or do you think you have to have federal help to improve registration. and i want to ask whether they feel states are equipped enough to solve their own problems. >> we need to think about the government to check things on the list. we use the social security record. but when we start thinking creatively, we could go further. we could say, look, all of the 18-year-old young men that are citizens are registering for selective service. there's talk if of young women also. they use every source of information. public health service, driver's license, that kind of thing. i think the thing is about ending up with clean lists that are comprehensive and complete where the data is accurate. then we can use data matching. when we ear working on our list, social security has taken away some of the information we needed to do our matching so it made it harder. we need to say, federal government, you have information on felon status, on citizenship. you have information on other thingings. we need to find a way to get and share that information. so i think maybe we don't acknowledge or recognize how much we're using federal resources now. but there's a lot more there if we could use if we could step forward into a dialogue instead of, i think, just standing back and saying, you know, we want to keep them separate. i think we need to lean into it. i'm strongly in favor of figuring the selective service list. it's the single best list in the country and we don't use it. >> i think the locals would like to have less intervention than the federal government, but it's not to say that the federal government isn't very helpful. it's helpful to us to track that data as the voters move from state-to-state. for example, they may die in ohio and use the records of deceased records in other states to remove them from our voter rolls, things like that. one of the issues around voting is voting i.d. we need to have validations from the government that we wouldn't have to worry about it from the back end. you couldn't become registered because you were indeed eligible. things like that we could work together to improve the dialogue and improve the system of voting across america. >> dan glickman, co-chairman on political reform? >> you know, i'm just curious if you're predicting ten or fifteen years out from now, would you predict on-line voting to be a routine thing in america? can we do this and still protect the privacy of people which i think would be the biggest concern. look at the national security agency and others, there's a fear out there that anything on-line is no longer private or secret. but i do believe the people are kind of looking for new and modern ways to vote, particularly young people who are used to these new technologies. >> i'll speak as someone who's run quite high visibility recounts that the citizens want to be able to see the paper and count alongside or on top of me and my fellow workers. we don't believe we'll be smarter than the hackers. i was surprised by "usa today" question. but that question for support for internet-based voting, very strong opposition. people have watched the world unfold and said, you know, the hackers are going to be smarter than us or the government for as long as we can see to the future. and when the election is close, you want to be part of that ballot and that requires having that paper record somehow. >> i would say the voters must trust the elections. a percentage of voters will not trust that system. therefore you will undermind confidence in the elections. i don't believe it would be helpful to democracy because it would sew the seed of distrust more sthoon it is at present although technology has the potential to improve in many other ways how we run elections. >> i have another question. to ensure voter participation elections, how about an individual mandate. not the least partisan -- the individual mandate to vote where citizens who don't vote without good cause are fined. i wanted to ask if rob was australi australian. doesn't this work in australia? what do you think of mandatory voting? will that fit with american culture? >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> yeah. i would have to agree it would be difficult to imagine both mandate and the penalty. does not seem to be something that we don't clamor for in the hearings that we're having. >> we achieved bipartisan agreement here. this one comes via e-mail. from ben wallace, a student here at the morris college of law. to what extent of the administration of elections bipartisan state and local election officials diminish public confidence in the democratic process. we have elected officials running elections sometimes? good idea? bad idea. some of you are elected officials running elections. so -- >> i'm going to defer on this one. >> i have been in the middle of controversy in my role as secretary of state being a swing state. i don't think there's a perfect system for doing any of this. every state can do it in a different way. i don't know, thole, that there's any other way other than having someone be elected that you could really be held accountable. because appointed officials can be moved aside if something goes wrong and you appoint the next person to go in there and add minister an election and if things don't go right, you move them along. when you're elected, you have to be accountable and once every two or four years you have to justify your actionings. i think it's good enough for the president of the united states, it's good enough for governors across the country, and it's certainly a system that i could not improve upon for secretary of state. >> and i feel very strongly that this mechanism of accountability in elections is -- is the proper way. but i will add that in minnesota, in the late 1800s, in a constitutional amendment passed by the citizens, they created a state canvassing board for the purpose of canvassing the statewide to legislative and other elections made up of two supreme court justices and two district court judges. so the process where the rubber hits the road and it's maybe most dramatic place, a close election or something that's raised as an issue, there is a broader spectrum of people joining with the secretary of state to run that process in collaboration with the local officials. there are some things we can add. and sometimes the idea to come from the citizens. we should be listening, oh, that's a good idea. we should try to incorporate that, to help build that broader base of sort of voter trust in the system itself. >> let me use that as a segue to a question i can pose to all of the panel. we thought more about elections since bush v. gor. academic fields, public thought about it. more lawsuits than there ever were. a lot more emphasis on knowing how elections were run. secretary ritchie mentioned a mechanism that might resolve a recount. we had a crisis in america after the 2000 election. we didn't know who was president for a while. what have we done since then? what could we have done that would change that dynamic? what's most significant in the changes to the voting system since then. what's the most surgt thing to be done ahead? >> well, i would say that most change to our system is probably come in the form of technology and machines. and there was a huge amount of money spent by the federal government in 2003 to help just fiction dictionings buy better machines. one of the thingings we touched on before is how dispersed administration of elections there are. part of the problem is there are different machines in different states. if you have a statewide recount, you get to some of those great legal issues bob and i love to wallow in about all of the votes being counted the same. i think that's the area of our greatest improvement and still the area of our greatest challenge should there be a recount. >> i think as a nation we've moved to largely election season or an election period. you know? we were 45 days in advanced now in absentee voting. west of the mississippi river, we see a lot of states, nevada, kroch, others, going towards the mail is their procedure, east of the mississippi, early voting on a lot of places. so the expansion of the opportunities which, of course, is somewhat remitted to the modern life style and the expectation of younger voters. it's just a lot more time and a lot more options and alternatives available for people. i think that is going to give us ways that we can begin to find solutions that more people feel wfrtble with, that it's going to address what we want as an individual but keep the integrity in the system. >> it's the nature of any game that's close. a football game, a basketball game, here on the campus of ohio state, if it's close, lit be controversial. a close election will be controversial. you have to know court cases and a lot about the details so that you can be prepared in the case -- in case that you have tough elections or close elections. you need to inform people way in advance when you're an elections official, here are the rule us. we're going to make them fair and consistent across the board. and if it's a close race and if it's not decided on election night, here will be the rules and the procedures up and everyone can know about them in advance and have confers in that system. and you must prepare when you're rung an election in america today nor those eventualities, particularly in a swing state because you will have some very good attorneys on both sides making sure and watching over your back and your shoulder to make sure that you followed the law to the letter. >> secretary, we got to know each other, right, sir? >> yes. >> the -- the -- look, the 2000 election, i think, has had a number of effects we're still living with. we know if we're going have a polarized political environment in which there's going to be ongoing shifting struggles for control, we have to run elections in a way that significantly increases public confidence in the reliability of the outcome. so what most works against that, and we have to -- this is, you know, a victory partially won. it's not fully won. that we can't let the cyclical nature of elections cause the whole question we're debating today to slip away from public notice between elections themselves. one of the problems that we discussed in a conversation we had earlier today is that -- and this is testimony that men and i and the other commissioners have heard it. the problem is the two secretary of states on the platform i'm sure are keenly aware of more than the rest of us, is that when an election is over, it's over. as a result of that, it's easy in discussing the allocation of limited resource, the allocation of the problems that the state faces is to shuffle the elections to the bottom of the deck. they can't get a hearing on what they think is most important and running the elections well and improving because the tension wanders away after the election is over. that is a recipe for continued problems. we have to see consistent improvement and we have to see it -- on the bipartisan basis. as i said earlier, there are bipartisan grounds for solution here. bipartisan grounds for agreement that are possible. the key thing for all of the rhetoric about the right to vote, it had to occupy in the scale of national policy priority, the same place that it occupied in our rhetoric. stop by the social media lounge in the back. there's prizes and other materials. while we are gone, let's thank the panelists for a wonderful debate. >> on the next "washington journal," what's ahead for the agreement of the iran nuclear program. we'll talk to the national iranian american council. after that, "washington post" health care reporter sara talks about the november 30 deadline for improvements on health care.gov. a look at pentagon's bookkeeping and the investigative report on spending at the pentagon. calls, e-mails, and tweets. >> tomorrow, the kato stews looks at nuclear attitudes in the u.s. and how that's changed since the cold war. we'll have that next live on c-span. >> years ago, i don't think somebody would look at the crystal ball and see that someone was streaming netflix on an iphone to watch a movie. this is what's happening. it's a huge issue out there that the technology -- again, that -- i remember in northwest ohio it depended on the day, is the antenna on top of the house was working right, you had two channels. some days you didn't get any channels because you depend on the wind and light and everything else. i want to make sure that we have things out there, the regulation and the laws on the books -- i think he's created around if i'm not mistaken, he's created about 3.8 million jobs. >> technology issues in front of the current congress monday on "the communicators" at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> coming up next, "q&a" with the ceo of amc network. he talks about "the big picture," america, and panorama. after that, question time with david cameron. followed by the former british ambassador to the u.s. speaking to members of the british foreign affairs committee about u.s.-uk relations. >> this week on "q&a," amc network president and officer jeff sapan talks about his book, entitled "the big picture -- america in panorama." >> josh sapan, what impact do you think television has on the political system and political culture.>> a big impact in many ways.a lot of people get their news from tv.a lot of people get their point of view and opinions and analysis from tv.