Its my pleasure now to introduce bob cusack, the editorinchief of the hill who will moderate a panel on how will candidates messages and platforms change with popular vote. Bob . Thanks, jim. I want to introduce our panel. Norm gordons teen of aei, michael steele, former chair of the rnc. Brown a common, evoked to latina, and jesse wagon, New York Times editorial board. I was looking back at the states that were visited most by donald trump in the last election. Not surprisingly it was ohio and north carolina, florida, pennsylvania, of course democrats wish that Hillary Clinton had visited wisconsin a bit more. The first question would be, if we did change the system, and norm, ill start with you, what would be the impact of campaigns and their strategy . So, as you mentioned, bob, they visited the large speed it dates and i was kind of amused when senator kramer of north dakota defending the Electoral College said this would make north dakota irrelevant. Well, guess what . When it comes to president ial politics, north dakota is totally irrelevant right now. But lets say we had a president ial election that is 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. You know, one of the things when we dissected Hillary Clintons lost, one of the things that kept coming up was not whether she visited pennsylvania or michigan, but the analytics said go to the places where your votes are. Instead of going to places where she lost 8020, or she might have moved it to 6040 and made a difference, she ignore those areas. The smart thing to do is go everywhere and make sure you can get votes, even in places and counties and states you would lose. What we would see is Television Ads like places in north dakota, which are very cheap. You would see a Ground Campaign because if you are going to lose as Richard Nixon did in 1960, 1 vote per precinct, and if you know you can shift two votes per precinct and you could win, you would go everywhere. The paradox is the major defense of the Electoral College gives power to small states is wrong. Small states would have much more clout in the world we live in if we had a National Popular vote. Paradox is the major defense of the Electoral College gives power to small states is wrong. Small states would have much more clout in the world we live in if we had a National Popular vote. You have been in the war rooms of campaigns, in president ial elections, other than the primaries, to states like north dakota, are they even discussed . No, they are not. You do measure how much money you get out of north dakota because it becomes a donor state, like my home state of maryland. If you are a republican, you only go to maryland if you want to have a fundraiser, you would not go there to campaign for votes. That is an important thing to understand. The way the system is designed to the Electoral College, what we have wound up doing is we are not Holding Elections in the United States of america. We are Holding Elections in the battleground states of america. Youre only talking in any given president ial cycle between eight and 10 states that the campaigns give a about, because the rest of it is flyover or donor. 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 that you look at and say, michigan in the last cycle would have been a battleground state is Hillary Clinton plate effectively. She took it for granted and donald trump did not. That speaks to the nature of this particular effort. It does open up the prospects, it forces candidates to have to attention to every state because every state becomes important. If i am running for president as a republican, all of a sudden california is equally important to me as my home state of maryland, or florida, or ohio. Why . I am about getting my vote. I might 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 is a national campaign, national polling, at the end of the day, polling only cares about a handful of states and if youre not one of the states you want see the benefit. My friend during the talk during the 2008 cycle, michigan was a big player until the Mccain Campaign decided to pull out. Committee conclusion it was no longer relevant. It was relevant to all of the races in michigan at the time. The impact of that premature removal from the race resulted in losses not just of the state by the president ial candidate, there are connections beyond just the president ial and why making a platform available to every voter, everyone gets to play and everyone up and down the system benefits from it. If we went to a National Popular vote, how would it affect voter turnout . I spoke to republicans in maryland who said my vote does not count in the president ial race. A lot of people feel that way. Would it help it significantly . Not just 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 not put out, the platform available to every voter participate, everyone gets to play and everyone up and down the system benefits from it. If we went to a National Popular vote, how would it affect voter turnout . I spoke to republicans in maryland who said my vote does not count in the president ial race. A lot of people feel that way. Would it help it significantly . I absolutely believe it would. One of the key reasons people dont turn out to vote is because they feel like their vote doesnt matter. It is in apathy that continues to grow. Campaigns are not reaching out to you and it is a vicious cycle that continues. Virginia is a good example. In 2000, virginia was solidly republican so nobody hosted any events there. Flash forward to 2016, virginia is a contested state. He saw 23 president ial events there. Individuals in virginia and it up turning out more. You had about 66 turnout in virginia, up from 2000. States like texas that are traditionally considered state, considered safe, there was turnout around 50 . Just to follow up, critics say the candidates would just go to the big cities. Right. I think it is definitely an increase from what we see now because candidates completely ignore 40 or so states. They are just focusing on 10 battleground states like michigan, pennsylvania and wisconsin. If we switch to the National Popular vote, you would have to reach out to individuals in more diverse areas. The Current System foregoes about 80 of the electorate. You have a book coming out in the spring on this. What did you hear from people on this topic . It is interesting, the book looks at the history of the Electoral College and attempts to change it over the years but i ended with a chapter of talking to Campaign Managers and field directors from the past 20 or so years from both republican and democratic campaigns. What was fascinating to me is almost to a person, they all wanted a National Popular vote. Both sides . Both sides. There were a couple exceptions, you can buy the book to find out about it. The vast majority understood how this warps american democracy. One thing that is interesting to me is in a previous panel, a professor was talking about a risk the one in three risk that a person who wins the popular vote nationally does not become president. I was like, why are we calling that a risk . If the Electoral College defenders are right and this is a system that is therefore a good reason and it was put there by the framers of the constitution and has been with us for more than two centuries, why is that a risk . I think the answer is pretty obvious. Nobody feels that that is a legitimate way to elect a president. Republicans would not feel that way for happened to them and democrats have not felt it when it happened to them. Campaigns understand this. They dont want to campaign in battleground states, but they do it because it is politically smart. They have limited time and money and they are not stupid. They know they have to spend it in ways that maximizes their chances of winning under the system we have right now. In contrast, if you have a popular vote, you would have a system in which as all the other panelists have been saying candidates would be free to go to the places where the votes were and that doesnt just mean big cities. One interesting piece of research i have seen comes from the National Popular vote, these are people that have been running the compact that has been gaining steam. What happens in battleground states right now is a prophecy for a National Popular vote. We are speculating on how the National Popular vote election would run. There is a pretty good answer to that and that is we can see it happening in battleground states. Battleground states are elections in which every vote counts the same and the person who gets the most votes wins. That is what a National Popular vote is. How do campaigns render run their elections in battleground states . They go everywhere. Every Campaign Manager i spoke to said this, this is campaigning 101, you dont just live in the city, you go everywhere. If 30 of the population lives in urban areas, you spend 30 of your time there. It happens again and again and you see it in every battleground state, i think that is a pretty good illustration of what we would see with the popular vote election. It is not just where you would go and spend the dollars, it is how you would campaign. In our tribal iced, polarized time, there is no incentive to reach out to people on the others. If you are trying to get every vote, and we are talking about moving into rural areas, democrats would have an incentive to be more sensitive to the issues and concerns of rural voters. They would change the rhetoric and possibly change some policies. Michael talked about california, we now have a National Republican campaign led by the president in a war against california, trying to undermine everything california is doing. If you are out to get a sizable number of votes in california, you are not going to do that. It is not just whether you are going to Pay Attention to the states by campaigning and putting in money, you are going to change the way you talk and your policies at a time we desperately need those changes. You are on tv all the time, how would the media, how would it change how the media covers campaigns . That is a very good question. The media has various stress tests they go through to figure out where they want to send their people. Which states they want to concentrate their time, very much the way campaigns do. You are looking at the value added. 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. If that candidate is actually 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, right . And to report the news they are making or not making. I think you will see some change in how the on ground reporters do their job and where they go in the decisions their editors will be making, in terms of their assignments and where they send them. This idea would now open up all 50 states as a voter playground is a fascinating and important one, i think. If we really believe the system should allow for everyone to vote and every vote to matter and every fault account. You either believe that or you dont. This notion that candidates under a National Popular vote would somehow concentrate their time in urban centers is just silly. The person who said that or thinks that has never run a campaign or been a candidate. You are not going to get votes if 50 of your population you go after his in one place and you leave the other 50 to your competitors, what you think its going to happen to you . Youre not going to win. The 50 you are concentrated on is still split up. No candidate corners the market on every vote in a jurisdiction. That is why we opened this process up and you say to the voters, you are now in play. Those candidates will take note of that and the media has to follow that, they will follow the script, they will follow where the news lines take them and they will follow where the candidates begin to take some noise. Sticking with the california example, if you get a republican candidate that sees a bump in the numbers, they are behind but they are competitive in california, you dont think the press is going to cover that story . They are going to cover that story. What happens . That feeds the narrative downstream. It is how the system is set up now. What do we anchor our president ial elections on . Two states. Iowa and new hampshire. You have people writing stories that if you dont win iowa or new hampshire, your campaign is over. Tell that to the people running in places like california and florida. The idea is to open the process up a lot more, to engage the voters for sure, but to bring those other components in the process, the media and the political system, in line with what voters are doing. You travel the country and talk to young voters, what are you hearing on this issue and which communities are underrepresented the most . Traditionally, it is communities of color and other marginalized groups that have been underrepresented in our electoral process. These students of color live in california and feel their vote doesnt matter. They live in texas, which has been considered a safe state. You definitely feel asyou definitely feel as if these candidates dont represent your values. Much to what my copanelists were saying as far as candidates focusing on battleground states, they focus on fringe voters in these battleground states for a slim margin so they can win battleground votes. If you care about the millions of People Living in california or texas as you would in a popular vote, you would have to change the narrative of your candidacy. You would not be able to win on a racist agenda. We were talking about some history backstage about in 2000, which i remember at the time was amazing that there was no violence after the contested election. Everyone thought maybe it would flip, that gore would become president but bush would win the popular vote and we saw the flip of that. In 2004, it was important for the bush team to win the popular vote, which they did. The question is, do you think donald trump will focus on the National Popular vote in 2020 . It depends on what day you ask him. Trump has said he has won the popular vote, that he would have won the popular vote is millions of illegal voters had not cast their ballots and he would win the popular vote if he campaign differently. I dont know what Donald Trumps position on the popular vote is today. Going back to what jim quoted at the beginning of the event, he quoted that electoral democracy the old the Electoral College is a disaster for democracy. The reason he tweeted it is it looked briefly as the early returns were coming in like barack obama would win the Electoral College and mitt romney would win the popular vote. All it takes is the hint that this might flip for people to get upset about the system we have now. What you are referring to are the 2000 and 2004 elections and that is constructive. Before the 2000 election, there is reporting that that election was looking like it might go the other way. There was a lot of reporting that there might be a split election in 2000 before the vote but it would go the other way. People thought george w. Bush would win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College. There is reporting that some people in george w. Bushs campaign were working on a strategy for a public push to get the electors to go with the popular vote winner and say the Electoral College was from the 18th century and what we need is a president elected by all the people. Obviously, they did not have to take that route, but four years later, because they lost the popular vote, the Bush Campaign team became perhaps only the Campaign Team that actively sought to win the popular vote. No other campaign probably ever has or should go for the popular vote if those are the rules, it would be politically crazy. We understood how important it was for him to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the country after what happened in 2000. He ended up winning by 3 million votes, which was Hillary Clintons margin in 2016. This goes to what the other panelists have been saying, in reference to california, that is a great example. California, you know how we people voted for california voted for donald trump in california . Four and a half Million People and not a single one of them mattered. Because of the winner take all rule, which is what came up in the last session. Its at the heart of the inequity that is created by our current Electoral College system. 4. 5