Transcripts For CSPAN2 Alexander Keyssar Why Do We Still Hav

Harvard bookstore continues to bring authors and their work to our community and our new Digital Community during these challenging times. Every week will be hosting events here on just like always had schedule will appear on our website harvard. Com and you can sign up for our email newsletter for more updates. This evenings discussion will conclude with just in time for your questions and if you have a question for our figure at anytime during the talks to, click on the q a but the bottom of the screen and we will get through as many questions as time allows. In the chat ill be hosting, ill be posting a link to purchase why do we still have the Electoral College on harvard. Com as well as a to donate in support of this series in our store. Your purchases and financial contributions events in a possible and help to ensure the future of a landmark independent bookstore. We thank you so much for showing up and tuning in support of our authors and the incredible staff of booksellers at Harvard Bookstore. We sincerely appreciate your support nowand always. And finally as you may have experienced in virtual gatherings recently, technical issues may arise. If they do we will do ourbest to resolve them quickly. Thank you for your patience and your understanding. And now, im pleased to introduce our speakers. Alexander keyssar is the author of numerous books including the right to vote with was a finalist for both the Pulitzer Prize and the Los Angeles Times book tries and one beverage award for the american historical association. He is matthew w starling junior professor of history and social policy at the john f. Kennedy school of government at harvard university. Miles rappaport is senior fellow in american democracy at Harvard Kennedy schools ash center for democratic governance and innovation and is a longtime organizer, policy advocate and elected official. Prior to his appointment to the hash center he was most recently resident of the independent Grassroots Organization common cause. For 13 years, he had the Public Policy center fema and served as connecticuts secretary of state. Tonight they will be discussing alexs new book why do we still have the Electoral College in which he explains the persistence of this arcane institution chases the american president. Examines the history of the Electoral College, the failed attempts to reform or abolish it and why efforts for reform i received so little attention from ponderous for the last 40 years. Lawrence lessig praises this as a brilliantcontribution to a critical debate , just in time to help guide effective reform now im honored to turn things over to our speakers. The digital podium is yours. Alexander admires. Neil. Let me thank you andalso the Harvard Bookstore for making this possible tonight. Thanks to all of you joining us tonight. I think it will be in the discussion and especially thanks to alexwriting this remarkable look. Ill just say ive been a friend and a fan of the professors work for years. We have both been involved in the democracy reform. Trying to make a democracy that is inclusive for everyone and a fair playing field. The right to vote, his previous book that no reference as an anchor and really the framer if i can use that term for the fields understanding of the nations troubled fraud history about the right to vote. This i believe ill show you both, why do we have the Electoral College will have the same rural i think has the explanation of the history practice and possibilities for change for the Electoral College. The same speaking of the book the timing is everything and this book is perfectly time. I always say theres more interest in issues of how we do our democracy than ever before and ivebeen in this field for a good 35 years. We are facing more challenges to our democratic structures than ever and the same time, i think there is more interest and more energy for democracy reform and ive ever seen as well. Just quickly i think thereare 2 kinds of challenges. One, are the kind of in the challenges that were facing in this incredibly related moment just for an example, the president of the United States decides he wants to postpone the election because maybe it really problematic. Or state that are trying to make it really difficult for people to vote whether by mail or in person. Or this the obvious issue of trying to figure out how to do an election under the conditionsof a serious candidate. Those are the kind of issues but there was a long term structural issues that have been with us for a long time and i we both, is voting so like what should we think of it as a civic duty. What about the Campaign Finance system which has forced the wealthy formany years. What about the undemocratic nature of the u. S. Senate. If we are rapidly approaching a point where 70 percent of the people will have 30 percent of the senators and 30 percent of the people will have 90 percent of the senators but having the entire list, heading the packet. Using both of other state narrows the election to a small number of socalled battleground states and lastly, into elections already in the 20th century, 21stcentury out of five from that 40 percent of the elections. The Electoral College has delivered the presidency to someone who has lost the popular vote. So that seems like a pretty risk indictment of this longstanding institution. Which leads vastly the question of why we still have the Electoral College. As alex has been kind of a person who has taken on these big issues for his whole career, let me ask you alex, what motivated you to really get in here and write this book. Before addressing the question let me thank you for the generous introduction and thoughtful introduction and let me thank the bookstore for sponsoring this event. Im very grateful that they have done so. To write the book i think it happened in two stages. The first stage was simply the 2000 election when the person who won the most votes did not become president. And thats set off questions in my mind as in everyones, why do wedo it like this . And what happened is the second stage with for a number of years was i began reading around, looking around trying to understand the history of the institution and i came across a number of actors that seem to magnify thepuzzle. What went on was the fact that there were 800 to 900 constitutional amendments introduced in the congress to modify or get rid of the Electoral College. By someones estimate 10 percent of all constitutional amendments in the last several hundred years been about theElectoral College. There was a longstanding interest but i also discovered that on six occasions, one ranch of Congress Actually approved constitutional amendments by the requisite two thirds vote so that interested me and surprised me. I also learned opinion polls indicate overwhelmingly that the American People are in favor of a National Popular vote. Opinion polls start in the 1940s. Admittedly that takes a debt after the 2016 election when republicans certainly went from being in favor of Electoral College reform by a margin of 58 percent favored reform and 2 weeks later only 19 percent were in favor of reform. I think that may creep back up. The basic fact was Public Opinion had favored this. So we have this long history of dysfunction, attempted reforms, Public Opinion and the final thing which really got me going was uncovering, i thought, it took me a while to fully figure this out but the conventional answers to the questions, the longstanding conventional answer is youll have to Electoral College reform because of a small state, the small states have an increment of Electoral Reform because they dont want to get rid of it by National Popular vote. Turns out thats not true. Its a convenient answer. To disguise some things that are made a little bit less principled looking. So with all of those discoveries, it presented a puzzle to me. Why do we have and it became a scholarly inquiry that i think member the question that a couple of hundred million americans asked themselves every four years which is why do we elect cabinets this way. Lets take us back, youre a historian. Lets go back actually in the Constitutional Convention which was the liberation have taken on an aura of sanctity. You would think the selection of president s took place would be the subject of a lot of deep and thorough thinking but from the book it seems like quite the case. So tell us how the Electoral College came to the Constitutional Convention. Exactly. They were befuddled by the question of how to choose a chief executive in the articles of confederation which is what created the constitution was no separate executive branch and the really have malls to do this. When a convention convened in philadelphia in 87, the people option which most people seem to favor was that congress would choose the president. And on several occasions in the course of the summer they had quotes and a majority or sort of majority said yes, congress should use the president. And then the next day or a couple days later they would start saying no, thats really not a good idea because then we dont have separation of powers were going to have corruption. They went around and around. And talk about having a National Popular vote talk about governors using the president. They could not come to a resolution read and then were not too late august and they still dont have an answer. Philadelphia in august isvery hot. And it was that summer. They were tired. And under pressure so begin what conveners often do. They left on vacation and left a committee to iron out theunfinished parts. Committee which consisted of 11 people in each state was the group that came with the Electoral College. And you know, there are many things contribute to read i think the best way to understand what they came up with was that it was going on this default notion congress to choose the president but that it should be corrupt and what understanding is with the Electoral College is a wreck replica of congress. It is, it has the same number of representatives and senators from each state, the number of a number of votes in a state and its a replica of congress that performs only one function and then disbands and thus it cant be corrupt. Thats how they came up with. Interesting and you send by the way the small state versus big state was not the only issue. Let me ask you, at the moment in this country we are realizing just how many things need to be reviewed or looked at a new through the lens of racism and Structural Racism andslavery. So im guessing that looked at with that perspective there are a lot of things that come up about the Electoral College so how do you think it looks when you think about it and what impacts for the issue of race and racism have on the electoralcollege . The impact is enormous. Not to say, im in disagreement among historians but im not one of those who claim that the institution was created to legislate order, i dont get through. Its 3 5 clause which was already in the compromise was imported into the allocation of Electoral College votes it wasnt the reason for 30 bucks certainly during the fourth end of the century there was the possible consideration of a Natural National possible popular vote but the most powerful story about the impact of race on electoral politics reform comes from about 1880s into the 1970s. And you know, the core fact there is that southern politicians were almost uniformly firmly and ferociously oppose to a National Popular vote. Why . The prefix clause was on. Africanamericans were franchise and then theywere disenfranchised. At that point , southern whites benefited from what i call the five fifths clause. In effect Southern States that representation in Congress Electoral votes in proportion to the state entire population, white and black but onlywhites were permitted to vote. This became greatly disproportionate to southern whites. And they feared and i think theoretically if the country adopted a National Popular vote, they would surrender a great deal of that. There are two things, one was that it put pressure on them to enfranchise africanamericans as they did not want to do then the second was that it would diminish their class. Because the Electoral College , i think it was a slightly different angle, stated in a slightly different way and the Electoral College influence of the state depends on its population. In the National Popular vote the influence of the state depends on how many people turn out to vote. And those southern whites benefited from and they basically kept the ideaof a National Popular vote off the table. For many years and then ended and i talk about this later, derailed the episode of when we became close as to getting vote and i can talk about this people are interested in question many other episodes. Why did you pick a few examples of times when reform was serious option and tell us what happened . I should grant you cant stay until sunday morning but let me pick two examples. One has to do with state reform and the other is federal reform. There is one reform states can undertake by themselves which is they can get rid of winner take all. Winner take all is not in the constitution. States have retained the power to decide how the electoral votes will be allocated. The 1830s it becomes pretty much the rule. What happened the end of the 19th century is an extraordinary episode that takes place in michigan which is been a republican dominated majority state like most states of the midwest tended to go 5545 republicans. When the democrats gained control of one point in the 1890s the first thing to do was is to end what the call the Electoral College. And to create a district system so if you won a certain district you got that electoral vote and then it would basically split the electoral vote in the state. Its an age old proposal. James mattis in the 1820s was in favor of it. Jefferson was in favor of it. Notably it had been the preferred sort of option among republicans in congress in the 1870s. This happens in 1891 in michigan and what happened is in the entire republican establishment a michigan and in the country turns against this. They denounce this reform called a minor law after john minor was a very minor figure in history, and they denounced this law as a crime against democracy. The president Benjamin Harrison gets involved and start crusading against it. They fight in the course. They lose, basically argued you could only use winner take all. They lose that in michigan courts and the end of having an emergency convening of the United States Supreme Court just before the 1892 election to fight over this issue. They say you cant allow district elections. The question that occurred, one comment to make about this story which ties into the previous theme is why these republicans who favored district elections at 1877 were treated like the plague, partner expression, in the 1890s. The answer was that in the intervening 20 years basically 15 years, the south had become 100 solidly democratic. And in effect banished republicans as well as africanamericans so that district systems were created, it would be no gains for the republicans in the south, and they would probably lose 45 of electoral votes. That the earned in new york. The conclusion of the Republican Party was they would never again when a president election. Thats one episode. And then what happens in michigan is republicans come back in to power and they are still enraged about this attempted reform that they punish the democrats, gerrymandered then come passed all sorts of Voter Suppression laws aimed at immigrant workers were voting democratic and the reading solidly empower in michigan for the next 50 years. Democrats dont get out until the new deal. Second episode may seem substantially this takes place in the 1960s. For various reasons having to do with a sincere commitment to democratic values, but also having to do with the fear of George Wallace becoming a kingmaker in Elections Come support for National Popular vote for jettisoning the Electoral College completely coming up with a National Popular vote, gross to ministry through 1960. Most populous support. The chamber of commerce as well as the aflcio. Basically those organizations agreed on anything is unlikely. They all favored Electoral College reform. In 1969 the the house passes a constitutional amendment to all reform the electoral to abolish the Digital Community<\/a> during these challenging times. Every week will be hosting events here on just like always had schedule will appear on our website harvard. Com and you can sign up for our email newsletter for more updates. This evenings discussion will conclude with just in time for your questions and if you have a question for our figure at anytime during the talks to, click on the q a but the bottom of the screen and we will get through as many questions as time allows. In the chat ill be hosting, ill be posting a link to purchase why do we still have the Electoral College<\/a> on harvard. Com as well as a to donate in support of this series in our store. Your purchases and financial contributions events in a possible and help to ensure the future of a landmark independent bookstore. We thank you so much for showing up and tuning in support of our authors and the incredible staff of booksellers at Harvard Bookstore<\/a>. We sincerely appreciate your support nowand always. And finally as you may have experienced in virtual gatherings recently, technical issues may arise. If they do we will do ourbest to resolve them quickly. Thank you for your patience and your understanding. And now, im pleased to introduce our speakers. Alexander keyssar is the author of numerous books including the right to vote with was a finalist for both the Pulitzer Prize<\/a> and the Los Angeles Times<\/a> book tries and one beverage award for the american historical association. He is matthew w starling junior professor of history and social policy at the john f. Kennedy school of government at harvard university. Miles rappaport is senior fellow in american democracy at Harvard Kennedy<\/a> schools ash center for democratic governance and innovation and is a longtime organizer, policy advocate and elected official. Prior to his appointment to the hash center he was most recently resident of the independent Grassroots Organization<\/a> common cause. For 13 years, he had the Public Policy<\/a> center fema and served as connecticuts secretary of state. Tonight they will be discussing alexs new book why do we still have the Electoral College<\/a> in which he explains the persistence of this arcane institution chases the american president. Examines the history of the Electoral College<\/a>, the failed attempts to reform or abolish it and why efforts for reform i received so little attention from ponderous for the last 40 years. Lawrence lessig praises this as a brilliantcontribution to a critical debate , just in time to help guide effective reform now im honored to turn things over to our speakers. The digital podium is yours. Alexander admires. Neil. Let me thank you andalso the Harvard Bookstore<\/a> for making this possible tonight. Thanks to all of you joining us tonight. I think it will be in the discussion and especially thanks to alexwriting this remarkable look. Ill just say ive been a friend and a fan of the professors work for years. We have both been involved in the democracy reform. Trying to make a democracy that is inclusive for everyone and a fair playing field. The right to vote, his previous book that no reference as an anchor and really the framer if i can use that term for the fields understanding of the nations troubled fraud history about the right to vote. This i believe ill show you both, why do we have the Electoral College<\/a> will have the same rural i think has the explanation of the history practice and possibilities for change for the Electoral College<\/a>. The same speaking of the book the timing is everything and this book is perfectly time. I always say theres more interest in issues of how we do our democracy than ever before and ivebeen in this field for a good 35 years. We are facing more challenges to our democratic structures than ever and the same time, i think there is more interest and more energy for democracy reform and ive ever seen as well. Just quickly i think thereare 2 kinds of challenges. One, are the kind of in the challenges that were facing in this incredibly related moment just for an example, the president of the United States<\/a> decides he wants to postpone the election because maybe it really problematic. Or state that are trying to make it really difficult for people to vote whether by mail or in person. Or this the obvious issue of trying to figure out how to do an election under the conditionsof a serious candidate. Those are the kind of issues but there was a long term structural issues that have been with us for a long time and i we both, is voting so like what should we think of it as a civic duty. What about the Campaign Finance<\/a> system which has forced the wealthy formany years. What about the undemocratic nature of the u. S. Senate. If we are rapidly approaching a point where 70 percent of the people will have 30 percent of the senators and 30 percent of the people will have 90 percent of the senators but having the entire list, heading the packet. Using both of other state narrows the election to a small number of socalled battleground states and lastly, into elections already in the 20th century, 21stcentury out of five from that 40 percent of the elections. The Electoral College<\/a> has delivered the presidency to someone who has lost the popular vote. So that seems like a pretty risk indictment of this longstanding institution. Which leads vastly the question of why we still have the Electoral College<\/a>. As alex has been kind of a person who has taken on these big issues for his whole career, let me ask you alex, what motivated you to really get in here and write this book. Before addressing the question let me thank you for the generous introduction and thoughtful introduction and let me thank the bookstore for sponsoring this event. Im very grateful that they have done so. To write the book i think it happened in two stages. The first stage was simply the 2000 election when the person who won the most votes did not become president. And thats set off questions in my mind as in everyones, why do wedo it like this . And what happened is the second stage with for a number of years was i began reading around, looking around trying to understand the history of the institution and i came across a number of actors that seem to magnify thepuzzle. What went on was the fact that there were 800 to 900 constitutional amendments introduced in the congress to modify or get rid of the Electoral College<\/a>. By someones estimate 10 percent of all constitutional amendments in the last several hundred years been about theElectoral College<\/a>. There was a longstanding interest but i also discovered that on six occasions, one ranch of Congress Actually<\/a> approved constitutional amendments by the requisite two thirds vote so that interested me and surprised me. I also learned opinion polls indicate overwhelmingly that the American People<\/a> are in favor of a National Popular<\/a> vote. Opinion polls start in the 1940s. Admittedly that takes a debt after the 2016 election when republicans certainly went from being in favor of Electoral College<\/a> reform by a margin of 58 percent favored reform and 2 weeks later only 19 percent were in favor of reform. I think that may creep back up. The basic fact was Public Opinion<\/a> had favored this. So we have this long history of dysfunction, attempted reforms, Public Opinion<\/a> and the final thing which really got me going was uncovering, i thought, it took me a while to fully figure this out but the conventional answers to the questions, the longstanding conventional answer is youll have to Electoral College<\/a> reform because of a small state, the small states have an increment of Electoral Reform<\/a> because they dont want to get rid of it by National Popular<\/a> vote. Turns out thats not true. Its a convenient answer. To disguise some things that are made a little bit less principled looking. So with all of those discoveries, it presented a puzzle to me. Why do we have and it became a scholarly inquiry that i think member the question that a couple of hundred million americans asked themselves every four years which is why do we elect cabinets this way. Lets take us back, youre a historian. Lets go back actually in the Constitutional Convention<\/a> which was the liberation have taken on an aura of sanctity. You would think the selection of president s took place would be the subject of a lot of deep and thorough thinking but from the book it seems like quite the case. So tell us how the Electoral College<\/a> came to the Constitutional Convention<\/a>. Exactly. They were befuddled by the question of how to choose a chief executive in the articles of confederation which is what created the constitution was no separate executive branch and the really have malls to do this. When a convention convened in philadelphia in 87, the people option which most people seem to favor was that congress would choose the president. And on several occasions in the course of the summer they had quotes and a majority or sort of majority said yes, congress should use the president. And then the next day or a couple days later they would start saying no, thats really not a good idea because then we dont have separation of powers were going to have corruption. They went around and around. And talk about having a National Popular<\/a> vote talk about governors using the president. They could not come to a resolution read and then were not too late august and they still dont have an answer. Philadelphia in august isvery hot. And it was that summer. They were tired. And under pressure so begin what conveners often do. They left on vacation and left a committee to iron out theunfinished parts. Committee which consisted of 11 people in each state was the group that came with the Electoral College<\/a>. And you know, there are many things contribute to read i think the best way to understand what they came up with was that it was going on this default notion congress to choose the president but that it should be corrupt and what understanding is with the Electoral College<\/a> is a wreck replica of congress. It is, it has the same number of representatives and senators from each state, the number of a number of votes in a state and its a replica of congress that performs only one function and then disbands and thus it cant be corrupt. Thats how they came up with. Interesting and you send by the way the small state versus big state was not the only issue. Let me ask you, at the moment in this country we are realizing just how many things need to be reviewed or looked at a new through the lens of racism and Structural Racism<\/a> andslavery. So im guessing that looked at with that perspective there are a lot of things that come up about the Electoral College<\/a> so how do you think it looks when you think about it and what impacts for the issue of race and racism have on the electoralcollege . The impact is enormous. Not to say, im in disagreement among historians but im not one of those who claim that the institution was created to legislate order, i dont get through. Its 3 5 clause which was already in the compromise was imported into the allocation of Electoral College<\/a> votes it wasnt the reason for 30 bucks certainly during the fourth end of the century there was the possible consideration of a Natural National<\/a> possible popular vote but the most powerful story about the impact of race on electoral politics reform comes from about 1880s into the 1970s. And you know, the core fact there is that southern politicians were almost uniformly firmly and ferociously oppose to a National Popular<\/a> vote. Why . The prefix clause was on. Africanamericans were franchise and then theywere disenfranchised. At that point , southern whites benefited from what i call the five fifths clause. In effect Southern States<\/a> that representation in Congress Electoral<\/a> votes in proportion to the state entire population, white and black but onlywhites were permitted to vote. This became greatly disproportionate to southern whites. And they feared and i think theoretically if the country adopted a National Popular<\/a> vote, they would surrender a great deal of that. There are two things, one was that it put pressure on them to enfranchise africanamericans as they did not want to do then the second was that it would diminish their class. Because the Electoral College<\/a> , i think it was a slightly different angle, stated in a slightly different way and the Electoral College<\/a> influence of the state depends on its population. In the National Popular<\/a> vote the influence of the state depends on how many people turn out to vote. And those southern whites benefited from and they basically kept the ideaof a National Popular<\/a> vote off the table. For many years and then ended and i talk about this later, derailed the episode of when we became close as to getting vote and i can talk about this people are interested in question many other episodes. Why did you pick a few examples of times when reform was serious option and tell us what happened . I should grant you cant stay until sunday morning but let me pick two examples. One has to do with state reform and the other is federal reform. There is one reform states can undertake by themselves which is they can get rid of winner take all. Winner take all is not in the constitution. States have retained the power to decide how the electoral votes will be allocated. The 1830s it becomes pretty much the rule. What happened the end of the 19th century is an extraordinary episode that takes place in michigan which is been a republican dominated majority state like most states of the midwest tended to go 5545 republicans. When the democrats gained control of one point in the 1890s the first thing to do was is to end what the call the Electoral College<\/a>. And to create a district system so if you won a certain district you got that electoral vote and then it would basically split the electoral vote in the state. Its an age old proposal. James mattis in the 1820s was in favor of it. Jefferson was in favor of it. Notably it had been the preferred sort of option among republicans in congress in the 1870s. This happens in 1891 in michigan and what happened is in the entire republican establishment a michigan and in the country turns against this. They denounce this reform called a minor law after john minor was a very minor figure in history, and they denounced this law as a crime against democracy. The president Benjamin Harrison<\/a> gets involved and start crusading against it. They fight in the course. They lose, basically argued you could only use winner take all. They lose that in michigan courts and the end of having an emergency convening of the United States<\/a> Supreme Court<\/a> just before the 1892 election to fight over this issue. They say you cant allow district elections. The question that occurred, one comment to make about this story which ties into the previous theme is why these republicans who favored district elections at 1877 were treated like the plague, partner expression, in the 1890s. The answer was that in the intervening 20 years basically 15 years, the south had become 100 solidly democratic. And in effect banished republicans as well as africanamericans so that district systems were created, it would be no gains for the republicans in the south, and they would probably lose 45 of electoral votes. That the earned in new york. The conclusion of the Republican Party<\/a> was they would never again when a president election. Thats one episode. And then what happens in michigan is republicans come back in to power and they are still enraged about this attempted reform that they punish the democrats, gerrymandered then come passed all sorts of Voter Suppression<\/a> laws aimed at immigrant workers were voting democratic and the reading solidly empower in michigan for the next 50 years. Democrats dont get out until the new deal. Second episode may seem substantially this takes place in the 1960s. For various reasons having to do with a sincere commitment to democratic values, but also having to do with the fear of George Wallace<\/a> becoming a kingmaker in Elections Come<\/a> support for National Popular<\/a> vote for jettisoning the Electoral College<\/a> completely coming up with a National Popular<\/a> vote, gross to ministry through 1960. Most populous support. The chamber of commerce as well as the aflcio. Basically those organizations agreed on anything is unlikely. They all favored Electoral College<\/a> reform. In 1969 the the house passes a constitutional amendment to all reform the electoral to abolish the Electoral College<\/a> and replace it with the National Vote<\/a> by more than 80 margin. One thing i found interesting as we other to come miles and i other two for a long time, but in that time when i was in my early 20s i i was focus on the antiwar movement. I i had no idea this was happeng in congress. I think very few people know about this episode. The house passes an amendment and then he goes to the senate and theres a lot of momentum. If you look at the newspapers in october of 1969 they think this is going to happen. The momentum seems overwhelming. It goes to the senate where key southern senators slow it down. It has to go to the Judiciary Committee<\/a> which is chaired by segregationist senator James Eastland<\/a> of mississippi. He slows the thing down and creates delay after delay. They year in congress of 1969, the spring of 1970 is a year that is still with regional tensions. Two southerners are are nominated to the Supreme Court<\/a> and they are both rejected by the senate. And then theres a battle over renewal of the Voting Rights<\/a> act. The issues of race and region are paramount in this period. Eventually thanks to the machinations of indiana senator birch by, the eminent has reached the senate floor in september 1970 and there it is greeted by a filibuster led by strong thurman, sam ervin and other southerners with a couple of midwestern republicans thrown in. We can talk later a percentage of using a filibuster which required twothirds vote to override was odd because to prove and in it he also new to twothirds votes of southerners wanted to get two chances to block it. It did block it. The advocates of reform never reached the twothirds mark in the senate. The vote was heavily regional, 78 i think it is of senators from outside the south voted in favor of reform or foreclosure, and similar percentage of southern senators voted against. That was the time in the 20th century when we came closest and in effect it was killed by a southern filibuster. Back to the point we were talking about before, about how race was critical in that filibuster wasnt for show. Speaking of reform, so there is now a discussion again Electoral College<\/a> reform. We dont know exactly what impact it will have in the 2020 election. Ill come back and ask that in a few minutes, but there is a movement for a National Popular<\/a> vote for an interstate compact. There are other proposals. Whats your general sense about the possibilities of reform and what form that reform might take, if it were to come about . Look, i could have written this long book and indepth as simply a blind eyed optimist. I do think the possibilities of reform are realistic. Not this week, not next month but i think in the next few years, within the next decade. Let me return to that but of what to make a couple of comments about the National Popular<\/a> vote interstate compact, and theres no way to tell how many people are in the audience know what it is, but in brief its a compact that a state can join the compact saying that it will cast all of its electoral votes for the candidate who wins the National Popular<\/a> vote. Not for the candidate who wins the state of the candidate who wins the National Popular<\/a> vote. This compact will take effect when states that have a total of 27070 electoral votes, which is a majority, have signed on to it. The 15 states and the district of columbia have now signed onto it. There are only about 75 short of winning. Its more of a contextualized whereas the comeback came from. It was in response, it originated formally in 2006 but it was a response to the 2000 election and to the fact that Republican Opposition<\/a> to reform in congress which has been staunch since 1980. A a shift in Republican Party<\/a>. The 1960s the Republican Party<\/a> was bipartisan. But since the early 1980 that has not been true. There seems to be no way in the world to get a constitutional amendment through congress and the compact idea is a way to circumvent that constitutional process. It is an ingenious idea or cluster of ideas, and it has been very energetically and impressively organized. My own view is that i think if the compact comes close to succeeding, its best strategy would be to then convert itself into a constitutional amendment. I think there are legal issues. If the compact ever to go into effect and be used in an election, every lawyer in the United States<\/a> with network to do dealing with the lawsuits that would arise out of it. It is inherently unstable. There are new constitutional amendments that have been introduced into congress within the last six months, and i think the combination of grassroots outside movements, Democratic Energy<\/a> and perhaps a reconfigured congress would create the possibilities for progress on this. Are great. Im going to ask another question i want to do a quick reminder to the audience that if you have a question you want to ask, go right ahead and nail will come on in a few minutes and broker the question for us. The one thing i would knows about think about the 2020 election is that whatever you think about today will be completely different two weeks hence. That said, obviously in 2016 we had an election where Hillary Clinton<\/a> beat donald trump by 3 million votes and yet was a electoral lost the Electoral College<\/a> significantly. One could imagine a situation in 2020 where the democratic nominee won by 5 million votes and still lost in the Electoral College<\/a>. So as you can look at this well studying the Electoral College<\/a> what is your sense of what impact it might play in the 2020 elections . After that we will go to questions from the audience. Building on your comment, i think an unspoken but important truth as a look at the 2020 election is that there will be relatively little concern or mistreat about the outcome if we had a National Popular<\/a> vote. The outcome seems to be in doubt only because of the Electoral College<\/a>. I dont think anyone thinks that donald trump is likely going to win the popular vote against jill biden. We could be wrong. We are still several months out, but its only the Electoral College<\/a> Electoral College<\/a> which seems to be making this into a similar semi competitive race, and then it might not be. The Electoral College<\/a> is affecting all of the charges, on both sides, and that to my mind is one of his deforming features. It doesnt matter how much you win new york or california or texas, just matters that you win. The Electoral College<\/a> and the structure of winner take all perversely but maybe not perversely commit provides an incentive for Voter Suppression<\/a>. It you are in the state that is closest for sort of close compete you can suppress two or 3 of the vote that may not produce a marginal increase of two to 3 in your total votes. It may give you all of the states electoral votes so that there is an incentive of the suppress votes. The final thing that concerns me among the many scenarios that have been circulating in recent days and weeks and months about whether this election will happen or whether it will proceed to a normal finale of counting the votes and declaring who wins, do i worry about the provision of the constitution which says electors can be chosen in the manner that each state legislature can decide. They can choose the manner which means they do not have to have a popular election. They can cancel a popular election and they can override if they have reasons, the results. This almost happened in florida in 2000 when Republican Legislature<\/a> was prepared to choose its only electors if the court cases did not work out well enough. Im worried this could happen in this election in florida and North Carolina<\/a> or in wisconsin where confusion about the count of the election becomes a rational Republican Legislature<\/a> to choose its own electorates. I hope thats not true but the Electoral College<\/a> is really right there, the structure shaping this election. Hopefully well get some more impetus for reform afterwards. Nell, are you there . Thank you for coming back. Do you have questions for . We have good match the question. First up, its my understanding that nebraskas popular votes are still proportion for the Electoral College<\/a> vote. Why dont more states do this . Good question. Nebraska does use a district assistant. Its not quite proportional, it uses a district system as does main. The short an answer to why more states dont do it, there are two answers. When his if the state as a dominant Political Party<\/a> it generally doesnt want to do that. It would mean giving up electoral votes. They are able to circumvent that in nebraska in the peculiar way but one reason is if you have a dominant party. The other is that states, people and states switching, the state would lose clout if it moves to a district system rather than winner take all. And even though everybody might agree that adjusters would be better off with a proportional system even better because it would avoid gerrymandering, nobody wants to go first. Nobody wants to give up their clout first. That has been the core problem. In 2007, eight, the legislature of North Carolina<\/a> which is democratic at the time was poised to Institute District<\/a> elections, and they were about to do. They had the votes when suddenly the National Democratic<\/a> party said we dont want you to do this. There was a Simultaneous Movement<\/a> in california by republicans to institute a district system which might have one republicans 22 electoral votes in california. We cant can be arguing for thd North Carolina<\/a> and against in california. Thats some of the reasons. Just to add a brief comment which is thats one of the reasons why the National Popular<\/a> vote compact is designed the way it is. No state wants to go first so its designed such that we will all go if we all go together, none of us will go without it. Theres some logic in that as well obviously. Next question. Why do we not have a national nonpartisan body to drop up electoral district maps given the discriminatory and recently rolled illegal gerrymandering by republican governor states and all of the president ial vote swing states, ohio, pennsylvania, florida . The answers that i would give about this is a reason we do not such a body is because with such that allah would have to be passed by congress which is run by people in these gerrymandered districts and conservative districts who precisely dont want to do that. The problem with gerrymandering is immense. Its a partisan issue and wont be solved unless theres a change in the course of composition of congress. I will add two quick things, that is with the help america vote act was passed in 2002, the kind of help out after the florida debacle, they created the Election Assistance Commission<\/a> and the states completely resisted the idea of giving any central authority, a central body, any federal body in his 40s to get in call the election agency. They called it the Election Assistance Commission<\/a> denoting the week this even i do feel theres been some real interesting progress over the last ten years since the posttea party wave rigged gerrymandering and a lot of states will actually either because they have redistricting Nonpartisan Redistricting Commission<\/a> or because of partisan changes or because of ballot initiatives. The redistricting process will be much closer to being a nonpartisan in 2021 and 2022 that it has been up until now. Im an optimist on that front. And we have from devon, what cause the tectonic shift within the Republican Party<\/a> so that by 1980 there were so against Electoral College<\/a> reform compared to the bipartisan support for it in the 1960s . Thats a very good question, and i would say a couple, a couple Different Things<\/a> happened. One, the republicans who were in office in the 1980s, there were a significant number of them who were a different degree of republicans and had been around in the 1960s again, the e 1980s were a good symbolic years, they years that Ronald Reagan<\/a> was elected. Notably Ronald Reagan<\/a> was ferociously opposed to Electoral College<\/a> reform when it came up in the 1970s. In contrast to gerald ford and bob dole who favored Electoral College<\/a> reform. You really see the conservative wing of the Republican Party<\/a> and and also the conservative wing of the Republican Party<\/a> is increasingly a Southern Party<\/a> and the Party Influenced<\/a> by the south. But then what happens, thats sort of the first phases of the shift, but then by the mid1980s, even the early 1980s there is widespread talk usually about the existing something called a republican lock on the Electoral College<\/a>. It wasnt quite a block. It advantage in. They won three president ial elections in a row. The core notion, and its interesting, was demographic. Their view was that the states that were growing most rapidly which were in the south and parts of the southwest, the states that were also republican. And those states would gain electoral votes while the traditionally liberal areas would lose electoral votes. The Republican Party<\/a> has clung to that conviction. Of course the 2000 election also affirmed the notion as did the 2016 election that republicans Electoral College<\/a> advantages advantage republicans. There was almost the reverse dynamic in 2004 when john kerry almost became resident despite losing the popular vote, doesnt seem to have faced republican thinkers at all. And we have come to what degree is Electoral College<\/a> reform being resisted by small population rural states who do not have the population to influence National Popular<\/a> vote results . I think that, based on my research i cant tell you exactly thats going on this minute, but there are rural conservative states and rural progressive states. I spent a lot of time in vermont which is a small population state, and but, i mean, the state of early status would be in favor of Electoral College<\/a> reform. Other places out in the midwest might be different. I think that even some of these smaller rural areas like utah, for example, came very close to joining the compact. So far no solidly republican states have joined the compact. It looked like utah is maybe going to do it. I think the fear, there is a fear that worlds date with less population we would get swamped rural states with less population would get swamped with the most populous states it but as one senator, i forget who it was, said in the 1970s, and he was from a small rural state, he said its hardly any different that it is now with winner take all in the Electoral College<\/a>. We dont hold much clout anyway. Right. Andrea our next question from catherine. Thanks for the talk. Can wait to read the book which i just purchased. Today can what is the most effective tactic or political activity, people want to work for the end of the Electoral College<\/a> should adopt . Wow, thank you for buying the book, catherine. I hope everybody sitting near you does that, too. This is a real conventional on an adjective but think the best tactic would be to try to collect into office either in your legislature make it an issue, people who share that opinion. And then there may be others who are popular organizing to do this around looking you could even grasp maybe around this november. The Electoral College<\/a> isnt the entity, as the name isnt in the constitution of the Electoral College<\/a> of each estate meets each state meet in november and possibly demonstration. Miles, youre much more experience in organizing and ai do. What would you say to that question . I mean, i think if the Electoral College<\/a> is in the middle of whatever tough controversy takes in and a place around election i think the first step is to give the issue much more visibility. And then i do think if there are changes, political changes, certainly democratic changes but if there are democratic changes in a number of states, you could get the interstate compact closer. Thats an interesting strategy you suggested, alex, that if it gets really, really close then potentially shift into a constitutional amendment strategy. I think youre right, its electing people who care about reform. My guess is people who care about general democratic reform and voting and campaignfinance and ending the filibuster will also be in favor of Electoral College<\/a> reform such think its about of electing people who support it. And then taking whatever in the jitters around it in november into the 2021 political debates. And here is a question about faceless elected. What do you think of the recent decision but faithless electors . Faceless. And the inevitable question. Is overtime the question has not been very significant. Theyve never determine the outcome of an election and never really come close. Interesting going back to race in the south, from the 1940s on, faceless electors regained the kind of prominence because there were a lot of southern faceless electors who did not want to vote for the candidate of the Democratic Party<\/a> even though they themselves were democrats. I dont think its a big issue. Its the Supreme Court<\/a> decision and i supported larrys position on this. Just as an historian i would have to say that i find it difficult to believe that justices come particularly those who see themselves as originalists, could not recognize that the constitution intended sort of electors to have the ability to debate, to consult and make their own decision, that they ought to be independent. And i think the rationales i thought were pretty weak for overcoming that. They seemed to be intent on a strategy of averting chaos, as i think it was Justice Kavanaugh<\/a> was talking about during the oral arguments. But i think that operated for one time with chaos. In the end i dont think the decisions will matter much. Miles, i want to be cognizt of the time. I think okay, so i will look to these are one last question and go back over to you, miles. I have a bunch of questions. Okay, here, this is interesting. So what as what would president ial campaigning look like if we switched to a National Popular<\/a> vote system versus the current focus by campaigns on court battleground states . That encompasses a few of the questions i got. A great question. A a very good question and te edges i dont know and nobody else does exactly either. [laughing] no, thats true. It would look very different. I mean, everything would be concentrated in the large media markets. Its also true that a vote is a vote no matter where you pick it up. The strategies to pick up all sorts of, votes in all sorts of places. If one remembers, it was a different context and in a 2008 primary season barack obama concentrate on picking up entrenched delegates and convention and all sorts of unlikely and small places but they began to add up. I think it would be i think it would certainly be an election in which we were all being addressed by the candidates. The messaging would be different. Not only how it was package but where it was shown, you know, those of us who were in massachusetts there is still president to election campaign. Its thats happening someplace else. That would cease to be true. It would become, for example, you think in your own neighborhood, turnout people for your candidate. Even if you know theyre going to win massachusetts, have big they would identify. Its an unknown. Changing systems have unforeseen consequences, but my own bet is on balance it would be beneficial. I want to do three quick last thing before we go and thank everybody and nell, thank you. Another is to make a pitch for the book. Here it is. I cant say ive been absolutely read all of it but a red good chunk of it and it is fascinating, all kinds of stories in its i just want to encourage you again. Which leads me to my second question which is alex, to get a chance if theres a story you feel like telling that you think was really interesting at some point in history here, other than what youve already said, i want to give a chance to tell and that i want to come back and have you close by saying what do you want to take away for people who were in the audience to be about the Electoral College<\/a>, its significance and its future . Okay. The story i guess, and this is a weird story, a story from late 1940s and 1950s when theres a movement in congress, a constitutional amendment to require the allocation proportionally. That is, sponsored by cabot lodge of massachusetts who was a woodrow republican and he really believes in the National Popular<\/a> vote but he thought this had some possibilities, and he also want to help Republican Party<\/a> may be make inroads in the south. Its cosponsor was a guy who was a very rightwing congressman from texas. He wanted to have a proportional system and he gives speeches on the floor of congress about this because he wanted to limit the power of jews, blacks and italians in new york state whom he thought were in effect determining american president ial election. Basically he wanted to break up the power of large estates, and he gave these extraordinary speeches about how the communists, the new York Labour Party<\/a> and the jews and the italians and black people, that remarkably this amendment gets asked by the senate in 1950. They were asleep at the switch, the liberals were asleep at the switch of those going on here. And then after it gets passed they start paying attention. Interesting, people not paying attention the other or being only superficially, and then liberal members of congress coupled with some important outside African American<\/a> advisers recognized that this is really aimed at from the point of view is killing the Civil Rights Movement<\/a> and killing support for the Civil Rights Movement<\/a> by diminishing power of key northern states and in effect making the south the strongest ring among the Democratic Party<\/a>. In a period of six weeks, this whole thing kinds of turn to render its remarkable political moment where you go from a constitutional amendment that is passed by a twothirds vote in the senate, and six weeks later, seven weeks later maybe it is loaded down by a twothirds vote in the house of representatives. Thats my last story. You do, the anticommunism and racism, all that that feed into this tells us something about anxiety attached to our politics and our discussions of political institutions. And how about your when my father wanted my mother to leave the party she was always the last one to leave. He would go up to her and say florence, make your concluding remarks. So alex, make your concluding remarks here. [laughing] for one thing i want to thank everybody for staying with us and for participating or listening to this session. I think, one of the final things i want to say about the question i i asked in the book, why do we still have the Electoral College<\/a> . There are multiple factors. Its hard to amend the constitution. Partisanship in some periods have played a role, a very big role. Racial tensions and racial conflicts have played a major role. Mostly not in a very positive or progressive direction and also something we dont quite recognize, which is the intricacies of the institution are such to make reform difficult. One final example at the risk of at aspect of the Electoral College<\/a> we havent talked about is the contingent election system. This is in the constitution this is what happens if what if nobody wins a majority . The constitution says you have to win a majority. If you dont, then the election goes to the house of representatives where each state delegate gets one vote. So the smallest date of the largest state have the same influence. This was created in these designs in the constitution, this is a way crammers were trying to protect small states. It has nothing to do with the institution of Electoral College<\/a> votes. But by the 20th century is clear by everybody that this is a family undemocratic. As my bellwether example, Mitch Mcconnell<\/a> even thought they should be reformed in 1992. But efforts to reform it by the time im really about the 19th and early 20th century we have failed in general because it is unacceptable for Different Reasons<\/a> reform this piece of the Electoral College<\/a> and leave all the other pieces standing. At one point the wanted to have several points. There was an attempt to get rid of the system or modified in some more democratic way but that would only work if the large states agreed to get rid of winner take all. They were mayor for able to cut a deal. The complexity of institution has made change difficulty, where they are not always visible from the outside. The last comment i want to make goes back to other questions that come up here. One of the themes come one of the lessons of the book, the lesson to be is that things change, political circumstances change, political conditions change. In views of parties and individuals have changed over time. The circumstances, certain circumstances change so even though my book is a book about defeats, i see a certain optimism vote in the long run and recently energize growth in faith in democracy. But also in effect the changes circumstances like life. We want to look also to the history of womens suffrage which added numerous failures and seemed to have knocked out of the box as the reform early in the 20th century, and then ten, 15 years later was the law of the land. All right, alex, thank you. That was fabulous and i really learned a lot and i already read the book so hopefully the people who have tuned in will have learned something is will and will want to buy the book. Nell, any concluding remarks . First id like to thank both of you for the necessity conversation and thanks to all of you out there spinning or evening with us. Please learn more about this Remarkable Book<\/a> and purchase why do we still have the Electoral College<\/a> . At harvard. Com. I posted the links again to purchase a book and for our donation link come second of the chapter on behalf of Harvard Bookstore<\/a> in cambridge, mass. , and for me im beaming from national to have a good night, keep reading and stay safe. Just a second. I would like to thank you for doing such an effective job this evening. And i would really like to my old friend for doing this so splendidly. I really appreciate it. Great. Tanks so much. Have a good evening. You are watching booktv on cspan2 for a complete Television Schedule<\/a> visit booktv. Org. You can follow along behind the scenes on social media at booktv come on twitter, instagram and facebook. During a Virtual Event<\/a> hosted by the Commonwealth Club<\/a> of california, former defense secretary robert gates took a a critical look at the use of u. S. Power around the world since the end of world war ii. Heres a portion. How the United States<\/a> had gone from a position of supreme power, probably unrivaled since the roman empire in every dimension of power in 1993, to a country today beset by challenges everywhere. I thought about how did that happen . How did we get here, and so i begin looking at all of the major Foreign Policy<\/a> challenges we had since 1993, thinking about what we had done and what we had not done that contributed to the decline in our role in the world and our power in the world. What i came up with was a set of nonmilitary instruments of power that had played such an Important Role<\/a> in our success in the cold war against the soviet union and is largely been neglected and withered after the end of the cold war. At a time when we continued to fund our military, we basically dismantled all of the nonmilitary instruments of power from diplomacy to economic leverage, to Strategic Communications<\/a> and more. We can go into that later. And as i looked at the situations, at these challenges from somalia, haiti in 1993 and others, right up to our relationship with russia and china today, north korea, it occurred to me that we had failed in many respects to figure out how to compete with these powers outside of the military realm. And so, and the reality is of the 15 challenges that i write about, for all practical purposes i considered 13 to be failures. And thats why in the title the word failures comes first. There are a couple of successes and they are important, and to some lessons to be learned from those as well, but we had a lot of problems during that 27 year period and i were just concluded by saying the wars in iraq and afghanistan both began with very quick military victories. And the problem identified, whether it was iraq and afghanistan or somalia or haiti or others was that once we had achieved military victory we then changed our mission. We then decided to move to try to bring democracy and reform the governments of those countries, and thats where we ran into failure. To watch the rest of this Program Visit<\/a> our website and do a search for robert gates or the title of his book exercise of power. Tuesday a Campaign Event<\/a> with President Trump<\/a> at the winstonsalem, North Carolina<\/a>, airport. Lifeguards begins at 7 p. M. Eastern on cspan. Live coverage begins. We welcome to the distinguished form dwight dwig. Eisenhower, present a United States<\/a> of america. [applause]","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia803204.us.archive.org\/22\/items\/CSPAN2_20200907_154300_Alexander_Keyssar_Why_Do_We_Still_Have_the_Electoral_College\/CSPAN2_20200907_154300_Alexander_Keyssar_Why_Do_We_Still_Have_the_Electoral_College.thumbs\/CSPAN2_20200907_154300_Alexander_Keyssar_Why_Do_We_Still_Have_the_Electoral_College_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}