Objection which obtains today. I go back backed into didnt even have youtube. All sorts of things we could do today. But the other notable thing, this is my reading of the constitutional convention. Other people may have read this differently, but in all of the discussions that take place among the framers as they are going back and forth to try to figure out how to choose a provision evidently know and they keep changing their minds, there is never, a concept that the people have a right to vote is never invoked. Its never mentioned. So were talking about a very different political era. Its good that original intent is not something that we have relied upon around here. Textually, it is important to note that the words right to vote now appear live times in the constitution. In the 14th a minute, section two. In the 15th amendment and the 19th minute and the 24th unlimited and the 26th amendment. So its precisely because of the legacy of slavery and racism at all sorts of stuff that the founders did not acknowledge that. They didnt have anything in the original constitution that persons are equal, only that states are equal and a cynic when you look for words like equal and right to vote. You will not find it in the original constitution but i promise you today when you look at your constitution, and here i get to pull out my copy in honor of kaiser khan and tell you that today those words right to vote for. Not once but five times and equal appears there as well. Can i refresh the panelists memories on some of the points that ive made that are better than respond to . And that is that elections have consequences. The Electoral College skus those consequences to the extent that Electoral College decides whether or not reconstruction survives. It decides whether or not we have a massive change in our healthcare is done, how medicare is done. Secondarily, the point made about the strength of a compact. I think you made the point but didnt answer the question directly as to whether or not it was withstand constitutional muster. If you have a new generation of voters who are literal in their thinking, which is one vote one person, how do you engage in any understanding of this fixture called the Electoral College . I would appreciate the remaining three voters excuse me, panelists, would respond to those questions, or at least include those in your answers. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members, in response to congress womens lees comments, i had a couple of of thoughts but when is i want to let you know also that in arizona and arizona has to actually passed the National Popular vote in the house bipartisan, 20 republicans and 20 democrats which i think was one of your questions a little bit earlier. I would differ as far as stating that the Electoral College itself is skewing election outcomes, and i would point out that i think one fixed to the problem that we currently have, a difficult fix, is when you look at states like california, Republican Voters are disenfranchised when it comes to electing our president in california, an, and texas, democratic voters are disenfranchised they are. I would say that one potential fix is that we dont have a winnertakeall states, that any electors are then awarded proportionally to the votes of the cast. For example, california had at least i think a third republicans who votes didnt really mean anything because no electors were awarded. I would like to remind members that the way that our system of governance, we are a republic of course and a representative form of government. You are represented here in washington. That when you think about it our house members are elected directly. Originally our senators were elected and selected by our state legislators until the 17th amendment was enacted. Our framers of the constitution actually had some different thoughts in mind when it came down different people were being selected. And then, of course, our legislators are selecting electors to represent the will of the states when it comes to the Electoral College congress, of course, ive heard some comments today about just the system in general. The Electoral College, from my understanding, comes from an english tradition. Wasnt something our framers just nearly willing to kind of came up with. Differen. Different aspects of hr constitution were borrowed from other countries and other forms of government to see if they made sense. One comment, and not trying to be judgment or anything, but congress, if you voice some concerns about the way the Electoral College behaves and works and whether it might be disenfranchised, its been around a long time. So you think about her history as a nation, congress could have mustered up the twothirds to pass them at any point. Especially after the civil war if the Electoral College and that system of selecting a president was deemed to be some a biased. Certainly after the civil war this is something that should have been looked upon and yet i think we only would talk about it when we run into a situation like we do in 2016 with our current election. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, i had a few comments. Yes, by all means. Thank you. I will start by taking crack at congresswoman jackson lees question around, particularly had we we explain our system to young people as a member of the vermont house i represented a great majority of university of vermont campus for the better part of 10 years, and registering voters was difficult. And when i would really tease out why that was, often case it was this feeling that my vote doesnt matter. Or we run into students that live in pennsylvania or New Hampshire, and they would in a somewhat perverse way, no, no, no, im from pennsylvania, i must go there. We would say absolutely. You need to vote there. So just an oddity of our system. I think also others have asked what would a campaign, a National PopularVote Campaign look like . We are so fixed on waiting state x and y and that red and blue map, but if you are talking about getting the most votes in the country, its no longer of particular interest to win the state. It is intense interest to run up margins in the states where youre going to win, and minimize losses in the states when you cannot prevail. So in new england we all watched New Hampshire in 2012, they spent some 35 Million Campaign in New Hampshire. They didnt spend a nickel and massachusetts, vermont, connecticut or rhode island. That would change it would presumably be some kind of spreading out of those resources throughout new england. In a state state like vermont we deliver routinely the highest first or second highest percentage of any state for president obama in his election and in his reelection. You could not go to democratic headquarters and get 80 miles from my house across the Connecticut River in New Hampshire they were begging people to take them. It just illustrates how extremely and deliberately shut out at least 3538 states are. In 2004 running. In 2004 running up to george w. Bush is reelection, the white house and the campaign admitted that they been pulling for two years in 18 states. So in that era 3 32 states were not even of interest to their opinion. This is how shut out we are. A popular vote it becomes a absolutely about margins everywhere. You would try to minimize places where youve been losing under winnertakeall it doesnt make any difference if users vermont or any state by 2 or 20 . You have lost the same price. At a popular vote is it about margins everywhere. Democrats will say give me an x to 5000 votes because i want to offset the drumming and taking in alabama. If people are worried about recounts, you ought to be worried about them today. They are far more prevalent today and a much bigger problem today. Prior to this election where five litigated counts, and, therefore, called into question results of our election. In those five cases, there was no question who had the most votes in the country. And after all, if there is 10 of us in mission and would vote on somethingsomething, we are far e likely to tie that if there are 1000 of us in this room. When you expand the franchise so that you treat every vote equal out of 130 odd million votes, the chances of a very close election go down. Right now we are carving the country up into 51 little pools as we saw in 2000 and we are seeing in other times. There was the question of who prevailed in florida in 2000. There was a question in that election who had the most votes in country. So as we grow the pool and would lump the country into one pool of voters, the chance of a recount is greatly diminished. Should we need a recount in that case, congress does have authority to create uniform rules. States themselves of course do have rules, but it is a bigger problem, a bigger likelihood of having problems today pick a fact we seen problems with recounts. The timeline is very condensed, and it is a bigger you irritantf winnertakeall system that would be under National Popular vote. Finally mentioned this potential instability if you go the contact route were states are changing their state law. To sum that is a great advantage. If there is some kind of unanticipated outcome, not of the election itself but of the process. Of course its easier than had we amended the constitutio conso undo an amendment. Much easier to change state law back. But i will say that the idea of legislators have made this change, who are after all treating a system that far too Many Americans think already is the case, would have a hard time looking constituent and sing we really got to back away from the one person one vote system where the candidate with the most votes when the elections. Go back to the old winnertakeall system that is part of the constitution. The political reality creates a great deal of stability through state action. But some segment, particularly my conservative colleagues in states very much favored keeping this power within the states. And they like that its a benefit that maybe people could decide to change their mind back out of the popular vote. Mr. Neil, did you feel, i would like to add that you attend as he did Say Something . A small comment. First, historically if we look at the threefifths rule which mr. Johnson referred to, if you look back, if you drill down into the constitutional convention, that was initially established as part of the formula for representation in the house of representatives, and for direct taxation. And it is arguable that along with a great copper mice, the connecticut compromise which set up the bifurcation between the senate and the house of representatives, without the threefifths compromise the south might not have gone along. They might have withdrawn from the convention. So if the Electoral College was tainted by association with this initial threefifths compromise, it was more by extension. As one of the other panelists pointed out accurately, late in the convention, the Electoral College was a vast sake of good and it was something everyone could agree on. Secondly with another historical reference with respect to representative jackson lee, it was arguably one of the great tragedies of American History because if you look at the progress of anticipation in selfgovernance by africanamericans in the south after the civil war, there certainly seemed to have been the exconfederate exconfederae it but they actually worked with the africanamerican officeholders. And the hayes tilden compromise with the true federal troops who would enforce civil rights on the former states of the former confederacy. It also essentially gave a blank check to jim crow for another 70 or 80 years, so i think your point is well taken. With respect one of the more interesting points made today was the possibility that the National PopularVote Initiative could be a halfway house, which might ultimately to direct popular election through constitutional amendment, which the panelists suggest was probably all to make the best goal. Another interesting point is that ive watched over the years with respect to proposed amendments that deal with the Electoral College. There is been an increasing interest among members, or was increasing interest, mr. Green was always, always very active in this, that would enhance the authority of the United States government through its authority over the times, places and manner of holding elections. Some of the other panelists mentioned this here today as well. It is something that the states might complain about, but on the other hand, if it were, if there were to be a federal, greater federal role in the way our election are administered, conducted and perhaps financed, states might not arguably be so unhappy with that. Finally, and that might also, you would really need i think as a pointed out by the other panelists, if you are going to have a National Recount you are going to get some manner of doing it on a uniform basis across the country. Because there are 50 different statutes on the books in the states right now and its very difficult to do that. And finally with respect to constitutional amendment for direct popular election, electi, constitutional amendments as was said earlier are difficult to get through. My experience in studying the admin the process is that a nimitz are either the result of a long building up of public support amendments until it becomes obvious that their National Majority are in favor of it, or it can be the result of a catalyzing event such as with respect to the 25th amendment, the assassination of president kennedy. Both of these factors are very helpful. The third factor is the attention and support of members of congress and the leadership in congress. For many years i used to say that if we ever had a socalled misfire, that it would probably be action in congress to push for a constitutional amendment. We had one in 2000. Congress did respond. It was through the help america vote act which i dont think i heard making her today, and that that was her useful legislation to provide improved and enhanced federal standards and grants and aid to the states to improve their Election Administration procedures, and particularly their hardware. So there has been work on this in congress, and its a possibility, i cant speculate, that this catalyzing event year that we have seen may lead to further developments. Mr. Scott . Thank you. This recount, one of the things about a state recount, if you have a recount you would assume both sides i going to be well represented. If you have a National Recount in each date you may not, in fact, have both sides well represented as you might of different election laws, sameday registration. If youre running up the boat, they election laws can be extremely helpful. Thats why one of the things you have suggested is it would have to meet National Standards which would eliminate the Voter Suppression laws that some states enact. But i would hope that we would get that straight before we would go to a popular so we wouldnt have some states doing the wrong recounts, changing their election laws to allow sameday registration and everything else, no counting, no certifying results that are absurd on their face. And then we are faced with having to accept that or, i dont know which, what you would do. But if we had the better mechanism in place first, then i think you would have something that would make sense. A couple of other things. We havent heard, i havent heard any comment about whether or not running up the score in one state would produce a better president than in the close states try to get from 49 to 51. Which would produce the better candidate, particularly and a swing state state where you have to get, you would have to cover half the country, you have to get to 270. You 70. You can get a popular vote running up the score in a region and holding your own and the rest. Which is actually better. And finally one of the things that could be helpful in this is if you had a runoff. If you have a bunch of the candidates getting 25, 30 , whether or not you would have a runoff and with the cutoff be 50 or something lower . Any comments . On those three questions, first, youre absolutely right, representative, that we will need National Standards, not just for the recount but for the count and in effect for voting. Because in an Electoral College world, the state actually dont have a particular incentive to make it easy to vote. You get the same number if they electoral votes in 1910 whether you let women vote or not, whereas in a direct election uw clout if you let women vote. In the direct election world, it is true and its a concern and i tried to address it as i thought through the ideas that making the National Popular vote, you need daschle oversight because california my site a, lets let 17yearolds vote. And texas as a, lets let 16yearolds voteyearolds vote. Arkansas says lets let dogs vote. So youre going to need, this is a good think thing, not a bad thing to have a national law that you all would draft, implementing a national right to vote. Because the founders did not have that phrase. You now have it five times. And the deep egalitarian ideas that all votes are counted equally and no vote, no voter is more valuable than any other voter whether they are in a swing state are not swing state or urban or rural. That deep id will not be vindicated if you count votes equally but have different complete rules about who can vote and how they can vote. So youre going to need that up front. Whether its required or not by the interstate compact clause is what will make the system actually work. And to be admired in other countries do it. As to whether it is better to have candidates who are trying