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