Go get a camera and microphone and start filming and produce the best video you can possibly produce. Visit the website for more information today. A conversation on using the popular vote in the United States residential elections. Rather than the current Electoral Colleges system. Good morning, everyone. Cspan and also Live Streaming on the making every vote count facebook page. I want you all to behave. [laughter] the Electoral College is a disaster for democracy. Thats not me speaking. Or it donald trump area was donald trump before he changed his mind a few times. He also said this i would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know you get 100 million votes and someone else gets 90 million and you when. I quote him not for irony but because he is right and his affinity for the popular vote may reflect his instinct that a president who was elected without winning a majority is perhaps not so legitimate. Think of all the factors that have contributed to voter cynicism and alienation. Of all the measures that we could institute to help restore confidence in democracy. One that can be easily he remedied. And have it enormous impact. Suddenly, everyones vote would count the same. Truly one person one vote area voters all over the country not just in florida, michigan, wisconsin, and pennsylvania would determine the outcome of the election. Americans are very close right now to changing the system. To having a popular vote for president. How would such a system change american Political Campaigns . That is why we are here. Conference called when every vote counts. Im jim glassman im a member of the board of directors of making every vote count. A nonprofit organizations aim is to educate americans about the electoral system. This is a nonpartisan effort. I am a registered republican. I served as undersecretary of state the george w. Bush administration and i headed president bushs policy institute that is part of the president ial library in dallas. We have republicans and democrats and independents on our board all concerned about the future of democracy under our current electoral system. In five elections, two of them since 2000, we have elected president s who were defeated in the popular vote area if donald trump wins again, it is highly likely that his election will be the sixth and the third in six elections. Americans by an overwhelming majority reject the Current System. We know that from poland that stretches back for decades. The latest survey in july by andrew cluster found that 71 of voters nationally say that the candidate who gets the most votes nationwide should be the president. Only 21 oppose the idea. Among republicans, there is a majority of 61 to 32. Thats a two to one majority nearly. Whether we should change the so the candidate who wins the most votes becomes the president , u. S. Voters agreed by a margin of 65 to 26. With the majority of republicans agreeing. Statespulled many including right red ones and gotten similar results for example, north dakota. Statesre too many red or in north dakota and they are 64 of likely voters including 55 of republicans agree that the candidate who gets the most votes nationwide should become the president area and we also found that the majority of north dakota voters polled would vote yes in a Ballot Initiative that said that their electoral votes would go to the National Popular in thenner immediately 2020 election as long as a blue state with the same number of electoral votes also approved such a measure. Think about that. System that the current is not how we should approve choose our leaders. Millions dont understand it and it deprives millions more of a meaningful vote. Dont vote americans for president at all. Can you blame them . When just a dozen or maybe just for five will determine who that person will be. Otherose all of our elected officials the same way. Whoever gets the most votes wins. Every person has an equal vote. Why dont we choose president s that way . Mainly because the framers could not agree so they punted. They left the choice to the states. The constitution says each state shall appoint in such manner as the Legislature Thereof May direct a number of electors etc. The criteria for that appointment area did in the early years of the republic, many state legislators themselves and the appointing. Not the voters. Choosesry state but to electors the same way with a vote taking all the electors. Over the past several decades, red and blue voters have become more and more concentrated by state. Few states are purple. Candidates focus only on those states and when president s get elected, they shower those states with attention and in many cases money. We see this over and over. 399 publicere were campaign events. Were in just 12 states. The other states had three or fewer events. The majority of states had zero there are several ways to reform the method of electing a president. A number of Democratic Candidates for president have said that they prefer a constitutional amendment. Maine has enacted rank Choice Voting for the 2020 general election. Under a recent 10th Circuit Court decision, a electors can decide without regard to the wishes of the voters they want to be present. 15 states plus the district of columbia have passed the National Popular vote interstate compact which goes into effect when it is law and states that account for 270 electoral votes. So far, the total is 196. This change in the way we vote backed by a solid majority of americans in surveys is close to becoming reality. It is now a matter of only a few years until the person who gets the most votes will become president area we decided it was time to take a look not at the merits of the popular vote that at how president ial campaigns would be run if the person who gets the most votes nationwide is the one who becomes president. There is a lot of mythology around this question. What are the political implications . What are the Campaign Mechanics . We have just the right people to do it. Todays agenda briefly, we have a first panel in just a few seconds. They will examine how will candidates try to win under a National Popular vote. Friend stevemy clemons at her at large at the hill. How will thenel, candidates messages and platforms changed of the popular vote . That will be motivated by bob cusack the editor in chief of the hill eerie at that will be followed by a keynote address by the secretary of state of rhode island. Start steve clemons. [applause] good morning. I am editor at large of the hill. It is a pleasure to follow jim. A lineup coming up to talk about how the National Popular vote would work. What behaviors that would change. We have a wonderful panel this morning. Mark, the president of the stack will group. To my farleft is dr. Samuel wong. Thank you all for joining us. We have a task this morning to have fun with this. Were going to engage in conversation and create some hypotheticals that if our system were to change, what sort of behaviors would we see . Mark, you and i have done as a couple of times together and i was excited because when we were at the republican convention, we began talking about different flavors of ice cream. You end up with two flavors of ice cream and one may be rocky road. They said oh no, he has moved to fish and chicken worried i said maybe we can talk about varieties of fish and chicken or how people are going to fish differently. Are they going to fish instead of one place or three places in a broader part of the chesapeake day. Now i understand you have moved to potatoes. Hear about theo potato analogy. Can you help set the stage on the topic of if we were to deploy a National Popular vote, how would you see candidates and behaviors change . I thought it would be most useful to give you an overview of the numbers of the Current System and how it works and how it has been working in recent years. That is to help move the discussion along. Told by president clinton he would like to have a story that people related to. I like food stories. Talk it back with him . Mostly the sandwich energy. I want to give you another concept. Im going to start out with the couch potato voter. What is the couch potato voter . Those are the 94 million americans who are eligible to vote but dont vote. If you look at the biggest problem in the system, the isgest problem in the system as that site has grown to be so big, campaigns have changed so that rather than focusing as i did back in the day when i ran a lot of campaigns for the swing voters, people instead try to go for the extreme and get just their slice of the couch out. If everybody voted, the entire couch would vote. Happen if actually the entire couch did vote . Based on a New York Times analysis, you will be able to see the slide in the street but what difference would it make if everybody voted in america . Primarily, of the 94 million, there are tremendous numbers of latinos who are not in the political system. They probably percentagewise rank as the Number One Group not voting. You would be surprised at the huge numbers of downscale voters particularly downscale white who dont vote approximately 60 million. Caution people who say they want everyone in america to vote. If everyone in america did vote, if we had not just a change in the Electoral College but a more australian system where everyone voted, you would be surprised that the change in the con composition of the electorate and quite possibly the outcome. Most people who are on the couch dont like any of the politicians eerie at they are right now making an affirmative i think there are a lot of people of the 94 million who simply dont like any of the politicians and they are highly volatile voters when they come in. When you take a look at the system, you see this enormous gap that continues between approximately 130 million who vote and the swing voters in the country who are typically middleaged suburban middleclass and i have always recorded as about 20 of the country. You also have to look at our primary system. What is a lot a focus on about the outcome of the election . Typically, notat huge numbers of people have voted in the primaries in the past. An average of about 35 million voters. If you take a hundred 30 million general election voters and the 226 million actually eligible to vote, the primary system then is being driven on the basis of about 35 million or 17. 5 million on either side. We have had some really contested primaries and you can see bumps up so the total can get into the 50s. That would still give you 25 million on each side. That, whenink about you look at politics by the numbers, we have about 321 Million People in the country last time i did this slide it might be 330 by now. We have about 226 Million People eligible to vote. Meaning they meet all of the qualifications. Million whot 94 actually dont vote and therefore are eligible, the couch potato voters. We have 130 million , about 35 million who book in a primary. 17. 5 million who vote on each side. That means that in the primary system, it takes about 10 million voters to get the nominee. About 20 million voters actually are the ones who determine the future for the other 321 million voters when you look at the entire system. I dont lay this out for a partisan reason other than i think you should always start out with how is the system working . Who is voting . Where does it count . Between the biggest cap who votes and the decisions that are made . Should have mentioned, i also want to say hello to you in the audience but we also have these been here and its terrific to have them and im sure they will kick the tires on your numbers and im sure you will hear about whether your right or wrong. I thought it would come at this point and you and i have discussed previously that if you had a shift in the natural popular vote, to imagine the playbook for running an election would be different. I am interested in what behaviors you would see and i want to mention another donald said if you go by the college the Electoral College, that is a very different race than running the popular vote its like a hundred yard versus the mile. I stole this from an article in salon. In this he is looking at the different muscles you would use. Then what mark said about couch potato voter and others who might be brought in, what would you see is some of the Campaign Strategy differences that you would employ . Because you are talking about a much greater geography and audience size that the campaign would need to talk to, it would cost a lot more. Then, suddenly you have to be pulling in california and new york regularly. More from a staff standpoint and advertising. Given the hard dollar fundraising limits, i dont think campaigns should focus at all on broadcast ads. Let the super pacs and dark money aspects take that over then campaigns would more look more and more toward modeling. We are seeing more candidates on all levels is a good thing . I think so because youre getting more individualized. Figuring out what individuals talk toare about them the issues that they care about and mobilize them to get out to one or to persuade them those issues. Right now in north dakota which was a case that jim raised , how would you suspect that a campaign right now is not much play in that state as a battleground state, give me a story that you might see unfold as to how a voter there would weigh more in the next election with National Popular vote and we have today . Candidates would actually be looking to pull them and to model what they put out. They know a voter in north dakota cares about health car and they can direct those ads to those individuals. Then those voters will hear from the candidates on the issues they really care about. Dr. Wong, let dr. Wong, le. If you are looking at this time of close elections and simulated scenarios of how they can result in the future, i am interested in how you see the impact coming on board . Then addition to founding consortium, i am a Laboratory Scientist and scientists should not be involved in this that democracy has gotten complicated. Some bugs in the electrical system. Unanticipated weaknesses. We had tospan because show slides its very exciting for an academic to show visuals. [laughter] Research Laboratory at Princeton University and i want to show some real and mythical in the Electoral College. I want to hopefully replace some false belief that people have. The reason we care some much about the Electoral College, this is a graph of the popular margin for whoever became president back to john quincy adams. The reason we care about this is if you look below the black horizontal line, there is a time in the 19th century we had racial divisions and technological disruption and deep partisanship. It then we had to popular vote losers become president. Familiar to us. We have a time today were we have racial divisions, technological disruption, increase in inequality and deep partisanship. Two out of the last five elections, the person with the most popular votes did not become president. I want to show you know in the next slide that and close elections, there is a one in three chance that the popular vote winner will not become president and this can go in either direction. If this is not from the so if you want to read more about it, you can read at my website. Alsonly with modeling but with actual data, taking this Historical Data going through and others, ife the election was is within three Percentage Points of the popular vote, there is a one in three chance that the popular vote winner will not become president. Pulled out a had win in ohio, he would have been president in 2004. Our conversation would have a deferred tenor today. Andould go either direction that one in three risk is rather large in my opinion. There is a believe, if we have a National Popular vote we would end up with a system in which those on the coast would end of determining the presidency. I want to show you that this is not the case. This is a graph of what fraction of the Hillary Clinton plus donald trump vote is one by state. Axis, its the number of states and you can see here in the lower corner, california only provides 7 of the necessary 50 . Texas,york, florida, texas would provide some of those votes. You have to go to all the 41 states plus d. C. Before you end up with enough votes to give Hillary Clinton more than donald trump. The second voting entity that puts her over half of the twoparty vote is rhode island. This is a situation in which rhode island votes and up mattering. This is important from the popular belief that its really coastal states that will end up providing the states votes. Rural voters in california are disempowered. World voters all over the country are disempowered because they dont matter because they arent in swim stakes swing states. I want to emphasize that those beliefs are not correct. This is again something the people perhaps have not bought up. Foreign interference and elections is very much on peoples minds of these days. You cant avoid it. Having a few swing states, having the election decided in florida and pennsylvania and ohio, maybe this year and next year in arizona, michigan, wherever it might be that opens up a villa vulnerability to hacking. National popular vote can have a margin in the millions. If we have a close election, the number of votes that need to be flipped in order to alter the outcome is smaller. On the right side, the big bars trumpe popular vote for versus clinton and others. Were going back in time here. These are elections where tens of thousands or millions of votes would need to be flipped in order to alter the outcome of the president ial election. If you look at electoral vote elections, it is well known it only took a hundred votes. Similar in bush versus kerry, john kerry could have pulled it out with 80s 80,000 votes in ohio. This is a significant Security Risk. If we are concerned about four interference in our elections, we have opened up a giant security hole by not having a similar better system. Its not just that we run our models and its fun to talk about strategy, all of those are Critical Issues in addition to all of that there is a Security Issues staring us in the face. It seemed like it was a good idea to address the Security Risk. I want to say that the popular vote mismatch can happen in one out of three close elections. The Electoral College doesnt favor broad coalitions it favors battleground states. Finally, there is a Security Risk that we have to be secured about concerned about. Teddy roosevelt said the rule is the core concept of our election system and he was a republican. One can imagine that republicans might have analyzed interest in running a National Campaign as well. Academic, iman sure you look at the other argument as well and folks out there are making a big defense of the Electoral College. If you have someone across the hall at princeton who was a or she were making a defense of the electoral is there a difference that is plausible or do you think it is part of the system that needs to be worked around . Is there any strength of argument that you found in preserving things as they are . There is a thing called loss aversion where if you have a think, you are unwilling to give it up to their motivated to come up with a reason for it for example, i already mentioned one moral voters, but there are currently tens of millions of voters that are disempowered. Another is the protection of small states. These are common reasons given to currently, i would say people tosmall cities get ignored the voters, whether they are in philadelphia am a pittsburgh, have thousands of times the power as i do in new jersey, so i would say there are ideas that get kicked around and a good thing, but it turns out they dont really work out in practice. If present trump called you and said there is this guy out here defending this popular vote idea, how would you do that . I would say hang up the phone first. Let me go back to the National Popular vote. I want to make sure a majority of americans vote for whoever is president. Or it you have to be careful in a oneem where people go for of a various of parties. If you dont have a runoff i think it is hard to defend the Electoral College. Today, they are the concern. S not the popular vote winner candidate came in and split the democratic vote so that the popular vote winner was a republican, everyone would be the system asat they are about the Electoral College. To me, it is important that if you make a switch, you have a runoff provision. A lot of voters will be disenfranchised in the mix of candidates will determine the winner rather than part of the dropout of minor candidates. Rankedot of people say voting should be a solution, but it is not the same, forcing people oneonone to have a campaign. I think that system where the popular vote winner wears a majority, i think that strengthens our system tremendously and eliminates a lot of the flukes would come in that would come in which im worried about people would game into the system to protect the winner for someone up. , it hasrecall correctly happened over and over again that neither of the candidate has gotten over 50 and that the value of local reform, so i think this is a good point. I think it is part of the distortion, but something that is to be addressed to repair democracy. M very know my family, they are from oklahoma, they have been wrestling with this and there is also a strong degree of support during you have chatted with me a little bit about how other elements were changed, how parties themselves have to change. Can you give us some insight other than citizens that vote, but how features of our civil system would go through transformation . I think in the media term the primaries would have to change. I think after a cycle or two, changed to better reflect what actually happened in the general election, but i think more immediately is the way parties distribute their money. [inaudible] go . Here did it that, im not sure, but since then california and mississippi have gotten the same amount of money. Those balances turnout starts to improve. ,he ritzy a lot more candidates especially women candidates. You look for places that would help them. You are saying more and more women. Once the organization got started providing financial support, moral support and the launch of the super pac, they are seeing more women step out and run for office. Once women know the turnout effort will be in place, then more women on the right will also step up. I want to ask this gently without [indiscernible] s. Lks [no audio] the issue of white workingclass men has been part of the election story we have seen. Is there a way that there interests get addressed with this . The voters most of are white men and they would come out. The back to the couch potato remark, who is the couch potato exactly . If you are fixing the system, we have voluntary voting. Part of the problem is the turnout. Vote count. Y i think right now, the campaigns go afteruch money they swing voters. When you go after the swing voters, you attract the people that dont agree with you and if you win, and a lot of those. Eople unify the country when you run these campaigns just to get your people off the couch and the campaigns have so much more money, whether youre out at the Electoral College or the National Vote situation, you are just getting your people off the couch, then you are dividing the country and whoever winds has half of or her the country supporting them. I would much rather see eliminate turnout in the primary and require 50 and that would be a real democracy. If youre going to change things, change everything. Do you agree . I think changing everything would be great. Mentioned a lot of states. Neither candidate visit california or new york. There is this thing i was reading last night about president ial emergency declarations are greater and battleground states in battleground states. It correlates with the same battleground states. You would like our president s looking after battleground states, but sometimes we see circumstances when the president is not always motivated and in those circumstances, it is important to have programs that have good incentives. That is something you would not normally expect. [no audio] we see they fall apart, there are reasons where it is better to fix it and i think we are seeing in modern times a lot of motivation to fix it and hopefully in the next decade or so we can set up a situation where we are calmer and start thinking about building a democracy that will last another several hundred years. What is your sense of the enthusiasm or lack thereof of the National Popular vote construct . I got to know the former mayor of oklahoma city. Was very happyo on the cover of economist magazine for one of the faxes fastestgrowing in the country. Got about 40,000 people to go online to work with each other and they lost one million pounds. It is a very powerful story where they get people engaged. He has written a book about the and the secondns level countries. I have mentioned to him that we were doing this in this construct and as you look across the country, where have you seen enthusiasm for this idea . This idea . City voters in places like oklahoma, texas, nebraska, these are places where voters feel empowered. One right now shows the leading biden and heoe laid stone without by nine points in ohio and that would. Otivate ohio residents overall, i think voters in any state will come to a circumstance where they might have some reason to have their vote count and always count. That is the chance we dont have at the moment. How about the political infrastructure out there in the affairs he asked him and the enthusiasm for the concept . It would be hard to have that level. It would create messaging that would not be targeting, and i think that would tend to work. Gainst message division you would also have a higher alliance to spread to as many people as possible and we can see how social media can store nuggets oftives facts. Thinkgeneral, i , i think the concept is quite popular generally speaking. I dont think it is limited. That is why polls from a red state really surprise me. A point that i will make and keep hitting on, when they say a National Popular vote, they dont mean a partial change to make the system work. If you go back in 2016 and look at the National Congressional vote which everyone voted , 49 rat or republican democrat, so8 what is the National Vote . The other thing you have to realize, a lot of the battleground states surprisingly have some of the biggest economic columns problems. Do they have economic problems because they are a battleground state or are they a battleground state because they have economic robins . The battleground states, half the because voters live on a third of gdp or they almost or almost half. The underlying economics really the power of the change of the battleground state and think the trends, who has been a winner or loser will still be the dominant ones in any election. You were talking about the safety and security of the election and the ability that outsiders could metal. It occurred to me that there are internal meddlers as well. How does the behavior of Interest Groups change in the small, does it get better or worse . I think it is different, not fairly better or worse. I think it will go to where the persuadable voters are. Lets imagine the National Rifle association, gun debate is read much a key part going on right now. How what it shipped . I would suggest for them to do National Modeling and drive a turnout among those members whether that is in ohio, virginia, kentucky, oklahoma, that is where they will focus their efforts. These printsve they alliances if you will . That one thing that comes up his election integrity. To be honest, it probably does not matter if there are a few miscounted votes in north dakota, but if we had a [inaudible] would dakota,ces like north wyoming, all the states, so i think it may end up being important. To your point, organizations would also have to address these things as well. It is an interesting debate because is a National Election going to become more local and targeted or governed by National Media . State wide elections governed . There will be for both and room for Campaign Strategies and depending on who you are in your , ility to get National Media dont think there will be one formula. If there ever were a genuinely close National Election, that would be a security nightmare to the running counter argument you have made, at least now Election Security is important so you defend the integrity in those states. People can find 100,000 votes in 50 or 60 counties in america and you can have 50 or 60 battles going on. That is something that the country and Supreme Court could never recover from. The verse year when you have no idea what turnout is going to be. There is more opportunity for that. Metlection officials i have are pretty hard worsening and hardworking and honest in if we that structure in place keeps elections clean, i think those people will step up. There are some pretty hardworking people that run elections and we should think of them as americans who are i dont know. In a few minutes, i will go to the audience. Hawaii, washington, rhode island, colorado, delaware, new mexico, oregon. I am reading off of wikipedia. Did i miss anyone . Votes, 74ral college seems easy. Is it . I dont know if the Supreme Court would sanction it this way. I believe 200 years later it ites sense and say hey, does make as much sense as a full National Voting system with National Registration to really fix the system. I think we should do it the right way. Bay doing at the right way in that state get to make the decision . You cannot be for a National Popular vote [indiscernible] you want it decided by democracy. That is an agreement requires states to agree and in order to get the 74, i think you would need to give purple states or rest states on board read states on board. Goese way would be if it in the opposite direction as 2004 and another way would be to appeal to the candidates. Will take, it is a years longs project yearlong project to a all of the other concerns i think are important for one to go the distance. I think if youre going to do it, it should be done the right way. Very interesting way to work out the kinks and talk out the problems that could potentially come in. Article andding an wanted to familiarize myself and people look at history and small states and im looking at the legacy of slavery. It is very interesting. Tar all college was Electoral College was used for over mighty president s. I find that interesting because that isave a situation not using the popular vote as a todate and that is used justify. Any thoughts on this . 41 , heclinton got turned to the Electoral College. Campaign andery Campaign Strategy or strategy or why i keep saying whatever you think is going to happen and if you think the system will work to your vantage, both parties have proven even after 49 state white wipeoutshat else white they come back. A lot of reforms are not talked about. I think that could be bipartisan. It is aroundead from 1800. If we think about the original founders. When we refer to what the original goal of holding back was, there are 40 years of additional things that happened and we have disenfranchisement of women getting the vote. Withlectoral college idea the dudes and wigs discussing how in wigs discussing how democracy works. And it is thejobs way the system has told him to. I think we should be clear about what it actually does. It does not hold back a president who claims modern rule. Tension,s the perfect so thank you all very much. Afran th steve . [inaudible] it would reward turnout, but also reward suppression. Is targeted suppression increased or decreased . It is a very complicated issue because some states have a whole Registration Required in other states make it easier to register. That is what i did, look at the difference. I think there are registered voters. Registered voters in the swing states turnout quite high and then it is much lower. Wouldtional election probably change that a lot, but i think the Registration System is broken. And really, systems we have a Social Security card from birth to citizenship and thatg the same process could have National Registration , a tremendous difference in the system. Aspectt is every single that doesnt meet down to , one of the only two flavors of ice cream. It will change this whole system and reconfigure so that it gives everyone a level playing field. Amanda, do you have thoughts on vote recruitment and suppression tactics . I think it will be in different locations than being left overall. Battleground on counties and precinct. It is not necessarily more or less, just different locations. Right here in front. I have been working on campaigns and get out to vote since 1952. You are looking good. Not walking as well. Why you didnt mention it, just general excitement. How you increase excitement, second question, you did not mention precinct work. I can make a difference. Not only in the novel the the more people, poorly, i can make a difference in the down ballot. Iople wont vote for the way tell them president , but they will for Circuit Court judge. From thement comes candidates, especially at the top of the ticket. They are excited to vote for or. Gainst someone workers, theyinct do a fantastic job. I dont think there are enough of them, especially where you that precinct worker. Doesnt excitement increased if you feel like your vote doesnt count . There are a lot of people who feel that their vote doesnt count, so they dont vote, but if you had a system where their vote discount, the excitement would increase. Does that it does does that make sense . I think youre right. Whether or not it will make a net difference, im not sure. Makes a real difference. I completely agree for a National Election everyone will feel a equal to get out the vote or not. Was drivenystem that by organizations and then mass organizations. To say about excitement, the most depressing thing to me are 90 the campaign ads negative and negative campaigns are driving turnout of up. Of swing voters dont anyone,her candidate or so we are in a very negative environment. One thing we are talking about is Campaign Mobilization on a National Level and that means it probably has something to do with excitement at the local level. Would affect many. We are going to think about the fact that elections matter. To question that goes back 1952, those were not terribly excitementthere is at the local level, so i think we need to look gone what is happened the last 10 or 20 years and building something that is going to work. Simulate where you have different tangibility of people involved. [inaudible] you used to work for him. I think giving people the day off. Two, can you talk about the National Popular vote how it would affect candidates of color. Presumably, that could help. Far. Nt go too voting andf for kanas of color. And candidates of color. You dont make a lot of [no audio] away doing weekend voting would be hard for people in las vegas and the hospitality industry. Question of candidates of color . I think it is similar. Once they see the system that has not seen that, more quality candidates to run or just for fun. If you are going to redo the Voting System, you would get the precinct altogether and create a whole Voting System that was secure. We could have couch voting . To have the panelists say we should do a constitutional numbness, but that is two thirds of the state or congress and three quarters of congress and that is just not realistic. We are in the secondbest world if you really do want to change given how unlikely that is. Right here in the middle . Remember that our senators used to be elected by their state legislatures and that was so successful that a never had anyes senators in washington because the legislatures cannot agree, so a state changed their process and by the time, i believe it was 1923 where it finally passed, Something Like the reports of the state three fourths of the states passed it. Have 196 votes electoral votes already and if you get that in maybe five to 10 years after the process is working. The other issues we are talking about today would be addressed at the same time. Person right here and then we will take this gentleman in the back. Hear thecurious to panel spanking around ranked source voting for president ial and general election and whether it would make it easier or harder . The gentleman and then close out. Are these mics not working . We have to make sure we have a runoff, assess the whole situation. You talked about negative all the effects that ranked Choice Voting has. It or you arest saying is not really the rank system. Im curious under thoughts. A couple questions on ranked Choice Voting and how we have evolved in a constitutional amendment strategy that seems to be too far, too difficult. Those. Ll take two of if you are going to change the entire system on how people are more than a need. Umber of legislatures you do need a National Consensus and i think there are so many things that need fixing that if you change one thing, you get a liberal candidate who splits the democrat vote and then a popular really need toe change a host of things and i think the most important thing is in a nonparliamentary system. I dont think that ranked voting enables people to make a fully fleshed out decision between the final forces were the campaigns go and make their final argument and the ranks towards voting is incredibly confusing for the it is as i dont think good as a runoff where the people get to listen to the arguments. Believe it is hard because it is supposed to be hard. It is supposed to be hard to get that people in that number of states to get behind that. On ranked the vote ranked vote. I would go to runoff after runoff. A common things to all these questions which is in times of national paralysis, to think. E for people as the questioner asks, that began locally. Speaking, oury democracy is in a bit of trouble with it be a city level or county level. I think 2d extent possible or any experiment, it might be a good idea to use the laboratories of democracy where to the extent possible any experiment, it might be a good idea to use the laboratories of democracy. [no audio] engagement, excitement, persistent patient would change because there is because even stateside oklahoma, [indiscernible] all very to thank you much. We are going to take a 15 minute break. Panel. E been a terrific on the comment about constitution, we need a vast majority of americans. Already, polls show that more than 70 of americans want this. It seems there are a lot of. Eople who want this i dont think theres any doubt about that. The next panel is even better. , a residentle and New York Times editorial board, that is what is next. 10 30. Be back at thank you so much. Isil things about president trumps leadership style that i had never seen in the fbi. I saw the way that his staff and advisers sit in a small row of chairs gathered and saw the way intoied to manipulate me inviting him to speak that week. I saw the way he again and again came back to reference about my wifes failed Political Campaign in the state of virginia and consistently referred to it as that state that i made. This was not a leader who was creating an environment of trust. These were efforts to course me in a position to take that loyalty i had and shifted to loyalty rather than to an ideal or constitution. You can watch all this event tonight at 9 00 p. M. Eastern. [no audio] as he said, my name is the deanne. Unlike most panelists today, i have never been to space which gives you an idea of the impressiveness next to me, but i did grow up in florida and watch many of you wants to space. It is one reason i chose to pursue engineering. I have gone on to