cc  >> Tonight we're pleased to have  Professor David Canon with us.  He is on the faculty at  UW-Madison Political Science  Department where he was the  winner of the 2008 Chancellor's  Distinguished Teaching Award.  He is also a commentator on  local and national politics on  both television and radio.  This evening he's going to  discuss reforming America's  presidential nomination and  election process.  Please welcome Professor Canon.  >> Thanks Monica.  It's good to be here tonight.  I want to start with a couple  anecdotes from the presidential  campaign season to give  some flavor for how -- where we  are today I think.  First of all is the observation  that both John McCain and Barack  Obama agree on one thing and  that is that Washington is  broken and needs to be fixed.  And I don't think there is much  more that they agree on, but  they do agree on that point. 

 And so what I'm going to talk  about tonight is that one part  of that broken system, that  is the electoral process.  And I think we have pretty  widespread agreement too among  most observers of the nomination  process and the electoral  process, that there are plenty  of things that are wrong with  that election nomination  process.  But one other anecdote, too, and  this came from a couple of weeks  ago after Sarah Palin was  nominated to be Vice President  on the republican ticket.  You may have heard reports,  erroneous reports it turns out  initially that she was a member  of the Alaskan Independence  Party.  This is a secessionist party in  Alaska that said some pretty  outrageous things, including the  founder of their party said "the  fires of hell are frozen  glaziers compared to my hatred  for the American government and  I won't be buried under their --  flag."  And so this is -- there are  some pretty strong political  opinions up in Alaska, and Sarah  Palin was incorrectly noted --  some people claim she was a  member of that party, she in  fact wasn't.  Her husband was for seven years  and she indeed courted that  party's support for many years  and praised them for the good  work that they had done.  But that's not my purpose for  bringing that up.  My reason for bringing that up  is a related poll that was taken  by the LA Times.  A report in the LA Times a  couple of weeks ago after this  whole flap came up about Palin  and the Alaskan Independence  Party.  They had a poll that asked  people about whether or not  states should have the right to  secede from the Union, and the  poll had found out that 20% of  US adults, or one in five agreed  with the statement that "Any  state or region has the right to  peaceable secede from the  United States and become an  independent republic. 

 "One in five Americans believe  in the right to succeed from the  Union and not only that, 18%  would support a secessionist  effort in their state, so  roughly 18% of the American  public if we believe this poll  thinks it would be a good idea  to succeed from the Union, and  so Palin's views as being  associated with this Alaskan  Independence Party may not be as  extreme as we think.  If one in five Americans think  that we no longer should be part  of this country, I think that  shows how deeply disturbed  people are with the American  political process today and in  fact this same poll went on and  found that 44% of those in this  poll agreed that "The United  States system is broken and  cannot be fixed by the  traditional two party  politics and elections.  71% of Americans agreed that  "Our system of government is  broken and cannot be fixed."  Okay, I want to emphasize that  last point, cannot be fixed.  71% of the American public has  grown so despondent about the  nature of our electoral politics  that they basically are giving  up on it in terms of well in the  extreme case, literally ready to  succeed from the Union, and in  the other 46% of the people  maybe are not going to take  action on this but at least are  pretty upset with the way things  are.  And this goes beyond just simple  public opinion polling too.  There is an active movement  afoot, there was a conference  that was held in Vermont about a  year and half ago of groups from  eleven different states that  were actively talking about how  to break away from the United  States, and so I think this is  still a relatively small portion  of the US electorate and general  public, but I think it does show  that the issues I will be  talking about tonight are  serious enough that some people  at least have basically decided  that nothing can be done.  Well I sort of agree with the  view that we have serious  problems, but I disagree  strongly with the view that  nothing can be done.  I think there is a lot that can  be done to reform the system and  make it better, and I want to  lay out some of those ideas here  tonight.  And I also want to leave a fair  amount of time for questions and  comments from you because I'm  sure there will be some things  that I'll bring up that you  disagree with.  There will be other things that  I don't bring up that you may  see as potential solutions to  some of these problems as well. 

 So I want to break the  discussion into two different  topics organized around the two  different phases of the election  process, the nomination process  and then the general election  process with a focus on the  electoral college which is I  think still a kind of ticking  time bomb in terms of our method  of electing presidents that  really is a disaster waiting to  happen in terms of the problems  that it could pose.  So let's start with the  nomination process then and talk  about some of the problems that  I think are there and then some  of the potential solutions.  Well one observation first  before noting the problems is  the reformers in discussing the  nomination process are always  fighting the last war against --  what I mean by that is that  they're always trying to reform  the problems from the previous  election cycle.  So a lot of the discussion early  on in this process was the  problem of frontloading, that we  have all of these primaries  packed in early in the process.  The election is going to be over  by February fifth, that it gives  an unfair advantage to the  front-runner.  Oops, well it didn't quite work  out that way.  Hillary Clinton is strong  evidence to you know  frontloading didn't work out  the way that people thought  it would this time.  It wasn't the problem that  people thought it could be and  so now the diagnosis is the  opposite of that.  Now the problem is oh we have  too long and drawn out a process  which is exactly the flip side  and the opposite of  frontloading.  Frontloading says oh it's over  too fast. 

 That you have to have name  recognition to be able to even  think about running for  President to dominate those  early, tsunami Tuesday  primaries.  Well now that we had this long  and protracted struggle, now  everyone is talking about how we  have to reform the process to  make sure that doesn't happen  again.  Well, it's like I said, they're  always sort of fighting the last  war and it's not clear which of  those is really a problem, but  I'll at least lay out the  arguments concerning those.  Now one that's fairly constant,  and this has been on the  reformer's agenda for the  nomination process for quite  some time and indeed in this  election cycle it was even a  bigger issue that it had been  before, and that's the role of  money.  The federal election campaign  finance system really is not  working very well when it comes  to presidential politics.  Barack Obama this year became  the first general election  candidate, major party nominee  to opt out of the public funding  system, and some see this as a  further indication that the  system is broken.  And so those two -- the front  loading verses extended the role  of money are two problems that  have been noted.  A third one is the relative low  voter turnout.  Even in an election like this  election where we had almost 40  million people voting on the  democratic side, a little over  half that voting on the  republican side, that's still a  very small proportion of the  electorate that's actually  nominating who our candidates  will be for president.  In 2004, only 17% of the  electorate turned out in  democratic and republican  parties when they're both being  contested and only under 10%  when it was just a democratic  primary and 6% when it was just  a republican primary. 

 Now in 2004 you have an  incumbent President running for  re-nomination on the republican  side and so you'd expect turnout  to be lower, but still,  nationally to have turnout in  the low teens, and that's really  a very tiny proportion of the  electorate that's typically  picking who our nominee is going  to be.  Now in this election cycle with  all of the interest with  especially Barack Obama and  Hillary Clinton and on the  republican side as well in some  of the early primaries, we did  see record turnout in the  primaries.  But the record turnout was often  in state by state it would be up  25-35%, some states got you know  over 50%, but most states it was  still in the 25-30% range.  Caucuses are still in the single  digits in quite a few of the  states.  You'll have 8-9% percent turnout  in caucuses with Iowa of course  being an exception, but a lot of  states' turnout is still very  very low.  So that's an issue I think that  some people would like to see  addressed as well.  And then there are some new  issues that came up because of  this election cycle that really  weren't on the agenda before,  and this one that is getting a  fair amount of attention now is  the whole question of open  caucuses for presidential  nominations because of I think  largely Rush Limbaugh's  operation chaos where he was  urging republicans to go vote in  the democratic primary and vote  for Hillary Clinton to extend  Barack Obama's pain basically  and to keep the democratic  primary divisive and divided.  And there is some evidence that  that actually worked.  There's a study that just came  out a couple of weeks ago that  looked at the republican  crossover voting in all the  early primaries before Rush  Limbaugh started his operation  chaos and then crossover voting  after those early primaries once  he did start.  So just to give you the numbers,  for the super Tuesday of  February fifth, in the closed  primaries you had about a 1-2%  crossover voting because in  order to vote for the other  party in a closed primary you  actually have to change your  voter registration. 

 So if you're a republican and  want to vote in the democratic  primary in a closed primary  state, you actually have to  change your registration to the  democratic primary to do that,  so not many people do, 1-2%.  In comparison in open primary  states it ranged from 3-6%  crossover voting, so still  fairly low, a pretty small  proportion of the people voting  in the other party's primary and  so many of those people may have  been Obamakins as you know  Barack Obama likes to call them,  the republicans that are voting  for Barack Obama.  So you know not a big enough  number to worry about, but then  in the later primaries, those  from March until June, after  McCain had pretty much wrapped  up the republican nomination,  there wasn't much motivation for  republicans to vote in the  republican primary anymore, and  so they really didn't have an  election on their side anymore.  That's when Limbaugh started his  operation Chaos of trying to get  republicans to vote in the  democratic primary and for those  primaries then that were held  after McCain had wrapped things  up it goes in a range from 6-12%  of the total turnout in the  democratic open primaries was  from republicans and so it's  hard to know for sure how many  of those were responding to this  plea to vote for Hillary  Clinton, but certainly a big  enough percentage that it  probably shifted the outcome of  a few elections even, Indiana  especially where the Limbaugh  campaign was quite active in  Indiana and the results were  very close in Indiana, probably  enough to tip the outcome of  that election.  And so because of that and in  general the desire of parties to  be able to control their own  nominations, there has been more  discussion now of something I  hadn't really heard much talk of  before just the last couple of  months, more talk of having  closed primaries rather than  open primaries for the  nomination process.  And then finally the last thing  that this -- that some people  see is a problem now that maybe  should be addressed which is  related to the long and drawn  out issue is the actual method  used to allocate delegates in  the nomination process so  republicans use a lot of winner  take all and so whichever  candidate wins the most votes  often will get all of the  delegates from that state.  The democratic party, by party  rule uses a proportional method  of allocation where if you hit  the 15% threshold then you'll  allocate delegates based on the  proportional votes you got in  the primary.  Well of course the difference  between those two sets of rules  is that the winner take all  method allows republicans to  wrap up their nomination much  more quickly than the democratic  process on the democratic side,  so McCain actually handled a  smaller percentage, much smaller  percentage of the vote than  either Clinton or Obama by the  time he had wrapped up a  majority of the delegates on the  republican side whereas on the  democratic side because of  proportional allocations it goes  on and on because if you have  two candidates who are roughly  dividing the vote.  And so there are some democratic  party activists now who are  urging the democrats to go more  to the side of -- to the method  of the republicans of using some  winner take all to hasten the --  speed up the process and to get  a consensus behind a frontrunner  more quickly.  Now I'm not so sure that's a  good idea. 

 I think that there are  advantages certainly to having a  more unified party earlier in  the process, but I think there  are also advantages to having a  chance for the entire country to  see your candidates, that I mean  a lot of people focus on the  negative consequences of the  Obama-Clinton race.  On the other hand you had 40  million democrats voting in  those primaries.  That's 40 million people that  now all the democratic party  activists have those people on  their lists of you know get out  the vote drives for the general  election.  You have more activists then who  are working in the primaries to  get people to the polls that you  can tap again for the general  election.  So I think the benefit for the  party organization is sometimes  overlooked.  People tend to just focus on the  negative ads, they focus on the  you know how the two are going  at each other and clearly there  was some damage that was done in  that process, but I think the  long term benefits for having a  more protracted drawn out  process actually can help the  party as well.  And so I think the democratic  party activists who are urging a  more winner take all approach  there may not necessarily be  onto a good idea in terms of  what really might be best for  the party.  Now in terms of other reform  ideas then of what can be done  to address some of these issues.  One, on the turnout question  here the biggest proposal is  simply to get rid of the  caucuses because the biggest  problem in terms of turnout are  in the caucus states.  Some primary states as well but  it is the caucus states where  you have the lowest turnout and  for good reason. 

 You know going to a caucus is  not like going to just you know  the voting booth and connecting  your little arrows with your  little felt tip pen and putting  it in the optical scan machine.  You have to you know often these  meetings will take two, three,  four hours at the caucus.  And so especially for working  families if you have small kids  that you can't leave at home  alone it might be working the  night shift or whatever, you  know a lot of people can't go to  the caucuses.  So there is I think a strong  argument to be made that if you  want to try to increase the  potential pool of people who  could participate in the  electoral process having more  primaries, fewer caucuses would  be a good thing.  Now with all of the proposals  there is the flip side argument  and that is that caucuses bring  something to the electoral  process that actually is  meaningful and is useful and  is some degree of deliberation  that you rather than just having  the solitary act of going to  vote where you're in the privacy  of your voting booth and you  know make your own decision, in  a Caucus, it's a public act.  You actually are there -- how  many of you have ever been to a  caucus, in Iowa or Minnesota?  Any people at all?  (inaudible)  >> Before my  time, when did they get rid of  it?  (inaudible)  >> The people  that I have talked to that have  been to caucuses talk about this  kind of communal nature, the  communal aspect of it where  you're in a school gymnasium or  your fire station or something  and you're there with all the  people in your neighborhood and  you actually at the beginning of  the meeting they'll do all the  party stuff and the various  discussion of issues and so on,  but when it comes time to  actually caucus and pick your  candidate, you actually go to  different parts of the room  where the Barack Obama  supporters go here and the  Hillary Clinton supporters go  there and the John Edwards  supporters go there and all of  the different groups of voters  who are supporting their  candidate physically go to that  part of the room, and then there  is an open free for all period  where you try to convince people  to come to your corner.  And so you go over and you say  "No, Joe you can't vote for  Hillary, what are you doing?"  And you try to pull him over  to your corner, and so it does  get kind of crazy sometimes in  that period of where you're  trying to convince your  neighbors to come vote for your  person.  And then it gets really  interesting that if you early in  the early caucuses if you have  some candidate who has not met  the 15% threshold and so if you  don't have enough people in your  corner then you've got to  disperse those and go join some  other group and so then there is  heavy politicking to try to pull  those people over to your side.  And so there is something there  I think of value to that where  you actually get a chance to  talk about your candidate and  why you're so convinced that  they're the right person that  you don't have in voting.  So I'm actually of two minds on  this one myself. 

 I mean I can see the very strong  argument saying that this  disenfranchises a lot of people,  again, especially working  people, working families and  also families with small  children.  They've done the polling on this  and it's just clear that it's  those people are really  disadvantaged in Caucus states  and so there is that bias.  But I think there is this other  broader value that comes into  play as well and so I am kind of  two minds on that one.  The second reform, and this is  the most serious set of  proposals out there on the  agenda for reforming the  nomination process is altering  the sequence and timing of the  primaries themselves, primaries  and caucuses themselves because  one thing that also has been  noted about the nomination  process is the fact that New  Hampshire and Iowa always go  first.  Iowa the first caucus state, New  Hampshire the first primary  state.  And how this is really not very  representative of the general  population.  Now they've tried to address  that to some extent by also  moving South Carolina and then  Nevada as early states as well  but that still I don't think  really entirely addresses the  concern.  So there are two proposals here  that have been talked about the  most.  One is to have a national  primary, just a single day,  everyone votes at the same time.  And that I think again there is  a lot of advantages to that that  you'd have a fairly quick  process that wouldn't be so long  and drawn out. 

 But the disadvantage there is it  really would favor the well  known, best, big name person.  It would be very difficult to  have say a Barack Obama come  along and upset Hillary Clinton.  Now that could be a good thing  or a bad thing depending on your  perspective I suppose.  But it would really advantage  the party front-runner and also  would require a tremendous  amount of money, even more than  is required now that's a more  incremental process where you  kind of build name recognition,  you raise more money.  Build more name recognition, win  a couple elections, raise more  money.  Now you'd have to have a minimum  $100 million, $200 million even  to compete in the national  primary, so that's probably the  biggest downside of that  proposal.  The proposal that I think is the  most attractive is one that's  been called the "America Plan"  by its proponents, but basically  it would rotate and randomly  select who goes first and rotate  those states every four years of  who would go first and the next  group and the next group.  And have gradually increasing  size of states because one  advantage of having Iowa and New  Hampshire early is the kind of  retail level politics where you  actually have candidates going,  campaigning literally door to  door, going to the school  gymnasiums and the town hall  meetings and so on.  And you have to do that in Iowa  and New Hampshire in order to  win the states.  And I think there is some value  in that, that the American  people get a chance to see the  candidates in a way they  otherwise don't see if it's just  the stupid 30-second  commercials that we have on TV  right now that I think everyone  is already getting sick of even  if we have two months to go  still. 

 But this is -- by having the  retail level politics -- the  value of having the small states  first.  But it isn't fair in my mind,  Iowa and New Hampshire always  first, so what you would do is  you would take the six or eight  smallest states, and every four  years you would randomly select  from those states and then  rotate them every four years.  And then two weeks later you'd  have another primary.  You'd pick from the next biggest  states and have some of the  smaller states and then the next  biggest size go in that next two  weeks, and then you'd get to the  next bigger states, and finally,  by the end, you'd have  California and New York, and  Florida and Texas going in the  last couple stages of the  primary process.  And you would spread this out  then over 6-8 primaries but it  would be randomly rotated  through those increasing sizes  of states.  And it seems to me that that  solves several problems in terms  of the representativeness of the  process while still maintaining  the advantages of having the  small states go first.  And so that seems to me as a  proposal that has a lot of  merit.  The problem is that right now  Iowa and New Hampshire are so  dead set on being first that  they're not likely to ever agree  to this, and as we found out  this year with Michigan and  Florida, the parties don't have  much of an ability to enforce  their rules, and so something  like this would probably take an  act of Congress in order to do  this.  And they're reluctant to step on  the toes of state parties as  well because these decisions  about the timing of elections  have always been in the purview  of the states.  And so I think it's unlikely  that the Congress would step in  and try to legislate something  like that. 

 And so I'm afraid that one's  probably in the category of good  idea, but it's not too likely to  happen because of the opposition  from several states that  wouldn't want to go along  with it.  Now another thing that I think  was revealed in this election  cycle as being an idea that's  probably outlived its usefulness  are the super delegates.  Super delegates date back to the  1980s when you had a commission  set up by the democratic party  to try to figure out a way to  get more electable nominees  because they had just gotten  hammered in the '84 election,  Walter Mondale, their nominee,  they carried one state.  And so they wanted to figure out  some way to get more electable  nominees.  Well their idea was these super  delegates, and the notion was  that the super delegates, the  party leaders, they would have  the ability to know who the  electable candidates would be  and they would play a pivotal  role in the convention and  actually step in and decide who  the nominee would be after the  primaries had gone and not come  up with a decent pick.  Well of course in this election  is the first time, and those  rules went into effect in 1988 I  believe is the first time we had  the super delegates.  So we've had them for 20 years  now in this convention for the  first time on the democratic  party's side the super delegates  actually could have played a  pivotal role that neither Obama  nor Clinton actually had a  majority of the delegates by the  convention -- needed to be  nominated.  So if all the delegates had  decided well we're going to go  for Hillary, they could have  done that, they could have  nominated her and indeed that  was her whole argument was  electability, that she was  arguing all along that she was  more electable.  And so if the super delegates  were supposed to play their  stated role they would have  picked Clinton according to  Clinton's argument, but they  didn't want to do that because  that would have been seen as  undemocratic with a small "d"  and that they didn't want to  overturn the results of the  primary and caucuses basically  and impose their own view on the  nomination process.  And so that I think has shown  that the super delegates are not  ever going to play the role that  they were intended to play and  so a lot of people have said  well let them go and have a good  time at the party, but don't let  them vote, you know. 

 It's basically that they don't  want to give up going to the  convention because it's such a  good time there, but let them  go, let them be ex-officio and  just go there for the party and  not actually vote.  Because they don't want to vote,  they don't want to determine the  outcome anyway, and so it is  kind of silly having them play  that role.  So I think that's a reform that  will be talked about, maybe  changed, probably not for this  next election cycle but my guess  is we will have some at least  decrease in the number of  super delegates going to the  next convention on the  democratic side.  So I've already gone a little  bit longer than I intended on  the nomination side, but I do  want to say a few things about  the general election too with  the focus on the electoral  college.  Because this is another thing as  I started out saying that I  think it is a disaster waiting  to happen.  And the problems with the  electoral college I think are  fairly obvious.  I won't spend much time on the  problems, but let me at least  mention a couple of things that  have come up, especially since  2000.  And that is the fact that the  popular vote winner often or at  least occasionally doesn't win.  2000 being the most recent case  with Bush and Gore, but before  that, three other times, 1824  with Andrew Jackson, 1876 with  Samuel Tilden, and the only  majority vote winner who  actually lost, Rutherford Hayes  and then 1888 with Grover  Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison.  So we've had four times in our  nation's history when the  popular vote winner did not win  the presidency. 

 And for many people that just  seems unfair that it really  shouldn't turn out that way.  And that it's something that  could happen fairly regularly  now that the country is so  closely divided between  democrats and republicans and  that it looks like this election  is going to be every bit as  close.  And as is conceivable -- I mean  if the polling, if the election  was held tomorrow, it's quite  conceivable that John McCain  could win the popular vote and  Barack Obama could win the  electoral college.  In fact that's the way it looks  -- right now if the electorate  was held you know tomorrow that  it probably would go, at least  if you believe the polls, Obama  could win the electoral college  and McCain could win the popular  vote, so this is not a partisan  issue in any way because it  could effect either party.  It's really for me just a  fairness issue that the popular  vote winner should win the  presidency.  But there's some other things  with the electoral college as  well that maybe aren't as well  known.  The fact that there is a  substantial small state bias in  terms of the number of electoral  votes you get to cast and that  is that because the number of  electoral votes is determined by  simply adding your number of  house numbers plus your number  of senators, the smallest states  have a minimum of three  electoral votes because two  senators and one house member in  every state is the minimum.  And so the smallest states have  one elector for every under  200,000 people.  190,000 is the smallest number,  somewhere in that neighborhood  whereas the biggest states have  more like one elector for every  680,000-690,000 people.  And so the difference there of  more than three times in terms  of the number of voters per  elector, and if you just -- you  may think this is just a sort of  one of these things that  political scientists worry  about. 

 Actually, if you take away that  small state bias, Al Gore would  have been president in 2000.  That it was the small state bias  that elected George Bush in  2000, keeping everything else  the same, keeping Florida the  same, everything else the same  is taking away the two  electorate bonus that every  state gets and Al Gore would  have been elected because Bush  carried more of those small  states to get the small state  bias.  And so this is a consequential  bias of the electoral college  that again, it just doesn't make  sense and it's not clear why  North and South Dakota and  Alaska and Montana and Delaware,  why should those states have  three times the representation  in the electoral college as the  bigger states?  It just doesn't make sense.  Now in terms of being truly  parochial here, Wisconsin isn't  really affected by this because  we're pretty much right on the  middle in terms of the size of  our state.  We're neither a big state nor a  small state, so we're not very  affected by this anyway.  But still I think it is an issue  that needs some attention.  But the other problem then with  the electoral college is that it  also -- this is the part where  we get to the disaster waiting  to happen.  It also doesn't have a very well  thought out process of what  happens if you have a deadlock  in the electoral college.  And this again is not just an  academic interest.  Anytime you have a third party  candidate running you have some  chance anyway of nobody having a  majority of the electoral vote  and if that, or you have a tie  in the electoral vote too. 

 That's the other possibility is  that you could have an actual  tie with no one having an  electoral -- or the majority of  the electoral vote.  So if that happens the election  gets thrown into the house of  representatives and the house of  representatives then chooses the  president and here's where it  gets really screwy.  Based on one vote per state, so  again an incredible small state  bias.  So those small states get one  vote, California gets one vote.  How does that make any sense?  And then the other thing that's  a problem here is that it also,  it is a vote by state  delegation.  So for many years for I don't  know at least the last three  election cycles until 2006,  Wisconsin wouldn't have had a  vote if this happened in the  electoral college because we  were split evenly 4-4 in the  number of democrats and  republicans that we had in our  house delegation.  So if you have four democrats,  four republicans you know  they're not going to agree who  to vote for, they'll both want  to vote for their candidate so  in those cases when it's tied,  your state doesn't get to vote  at all unless you get one person  crossing over to the other side,  but that's unlikely to happen.  And so you actually have one  instance where we came this  close to having an electoral  college meltdown and that was  the election of 1968 when you  had Hubert Humphrey running  against Richard Nixon and a  third party candidate of George  Wallace.  Unlike Ross Perot in '92 and  '96, where Perot actually won a  bigger percentage of the vote  than Wallace, but his vote was  spread out evenly across the  country, so he didn't carry any  states.  Wallace's vote was concentrated  in the south, so he actually  carried half a dozen states and  enough electoral votes to almost  deny Richard Nixon a majority in  the electoral college. 

 So had there just been a few  thousand votes that had shifted  in Ohio and Hawaii, those two  states were very close, narrowly  went for Nixon.  Had those just shifted a few  thousand votes in those two  states, Humphrey would have  carried those two states, Nixon  would not have had a majority of  the electoral college, it would  have gotten thrown into the  House of Representatives, and  neither Nixon nor Humphrey would  have had a majority of the  states.  So we would not have had any way  to elect our President from the  electoral college mechanism  unless some deal was made you  know where -- I don't know they  made some deal to make Humphrey  Secretary of State in the Nixon  Administration, or I can't even  imagine what it would be.  But then what would happen in  that instance is that the Senate  would then have to elect a  vice-president and in the Senate  you would have every Senator  gets one vote basically to elect  the vice-president.  So until some deal could have  been worked out, you would have  had to have had the Senate  picking who the vice-president  would be who would serve as  acting President then until the  mess could get sorted out.  And so that's the kind of thing  that we came this close to  having in '68 and actually we  came pretty close in 2000 to  having that as well because had  the Florida mess you know gone  on and had the Supreme Court not  stepped in and ended the  problems in Florida with the  recount in Florida, we also  would have had a situation with  neither candidate having a  majority of electoral votes.  And that in fact was one of the  motivations for the Supreme  Court stepping in, that they  said that you know we need to  end this, we need to resolve it,  and personally I would think  that the state of Florida  probably could have gotten their  act together in time to decide  who their electors were going to  be.  But it's not inconceivable that  they couldn't have.  Maybe the Supreme Court would  have said one thing, state  legislature said another.  The state legislature could have  sent a Bush electoral  delegation. 

 The Supreme Court could have  said well no, Gore won the  recount, so you should have the  democrats get the electoral  votes.  So it could have been you know a  real mess there as well, and  again, no good way to sort that  out necessarily.  And that's why the Supreme Court  I think -- one reason they did  step in but in my lifetime we've  had two very close calls in the  electoral college that either  one of them could have let to a  complete meltdown in terms of  the process and really that's  why I think it is a disaster  waiting to happen, and I think  we do need to have some reform  of that process as well.  There are two reforms here on  the electoral college that  either one of which I think  could work.  And one was actually proposed by  Arthur Schlessinger Junior who  suggested having a bonus that  would go to the popular vote  winner.  So you'd have the whole system  the way it is right now where --  with the allocation of the  electoral votes based on who  wins each state, winner take  all.  But then you would have a bonus  of 100 electoral votes, an  additional two per state that  would go to the electoral  college, or I'm sorry, to the  popular vote winner.  And you would just add on those  100 votes then to whoever won  the popular vote.  And that would be almost  guaranteed to be enough to put  anyone over the top who had won  the popular vote but lost the  electoral college, and it's  inconceivable, I mean I suppose  you could come up with the math  that might make that come up  differently, but it would be a  really screwy result to have  someone actually win the popular  vote and lose the electoral  college by more than 100 votes.  I mean that's almost impossible  to have that happen. 

 And so this would be one way to  ensure that the popular vote  winner would win, keeping  everything else the same in the  electoral college.  Another solution is one that's  actually been proposed in  several states, and a couple  states have actually adopted  this solution and that is to  have an agreement basically that  your state, no matter who they  vote for, the electors from that  state will go for the national  popular vote winner, and this is  a compact among the states, and  they way it would work is that  your state wouldn't be bound to  that unless you had a majority  of the electoral college votes  in other states who also went  along with this.  Because otherwise it's kind of  like unilateral disarmament.  I mean why should we vote to  give up our electors to the  popular vote winner if no other  state is going to do that, so  this is kind of a compact to  only go into effect after a  majority of the states have  signed up with a majority of the  electoral votes.  And that's I think another kind  of unique solution that probably  doesn't involve a constitutional  amendment.  And that's one thing with  Schlessinger's approach, it  would require a constitutional  amendment to do that.  With the state by state  approach, all it involves is a  state law being passed saying  that if this happens, we then  will decide that we're going to  cast our electoral votes for the  popular vote winner, that just  requires a state law.  Now there are some  constitutional scholars who have  argued that that violates the  clause of the constitution that  it talks about how the electors  are selected, and the actual  language is something like  "based on a state legislature's  decision on how to pick the  electors, that's the process  that will be used."  And so that would seem to  cover a law like this one that  would say well we're basing our  decision on the popular vote.  That's the decision made by the  state legislature.  But the Constitutional scholars  who say that would not be  legitimate argue that well but  you're allowing some external  party, this external to the  state to make the decision then  on who your electors are and  that's what's not allowed. 

 And they -- I heard one person  arguing this view by saying well  what if the state legislature  said okay we'll allocate our  electors not based on the  popular vote winner but instead  based on what the security  council of the United Nations  says, you know they get to  decide whatever the Security  Council of the UN decides,  then will say that is going to  be our president.  And clearly I think everyone  would say well that's  ridiculous, we can't do that,  but you know if the state  legislature could decide  whatever they wanted for an  external decision maker, then  the popular vote is kind of  equated in logical terms to  the UN Security Council.  It's some external mechanism  that's outside the state.  Now I'm not sure I buy that.  I mean, I think the language of  the Constitution is clear enough  that the state legislature can  decide how -- what the method  will be for allocating the  electors, and I suppose if you  take it to its logical extreme  that could encompass something  like a truly external actor like  the UN.  That's just obviously so  ridiculous it would never  happen.  Whereas allocating based on the  popular vote is not ridiculous,  and I think that's something  that would again be a  possibility of how to solve the  problem of the electoral  college.  I'm running low on time as I  want to leave the rest of the  time for questions and  discussion, but let me just  raise a couple of other issues  that I didn't talk about in  terms of the election process as  well, not as directly related to  the nomination process for  president or the electoral  college but more broadly about  the election process.  And here two issues: one that's  quite important in Wisconsin  right now is the whole question  on voter fraud vs.  voter suppression and the case  that's being brought against the  Government Accountability Board  by Attorney General Van Hollen  about making sure that the voter  rolls are consistent with the  electronic database that's based  on driver's licenses and the  problems that that could impose  for provisional ballots and so  that's a question about access  to the polls. 

 So how do we strike this balance  between wanting to prevent fraud  and not allowing people to vote  who shouldn't be able to vote  but at the same time trying to  have as much participation in  the process as we can.  And this is a very highly  charged, partisan issue right  now with republicans trying to  tackle fraud as much as they can  and keep people off the rolls,  democrats trying to keep as many  people voting as they can and  not being as concerned about  fraud.  Another question on a lot of  people's minds, more broadly  about the political process is  actual voting technology and  especially the touch screen  voting, electronic voting and  the potential for mischief that  could go along with any of those  kinds of mechanisms for voting.  Other things as well that we  haven't talked about as more the  campaign finance system -- I  touched on that just a little  bit as a problem, didn't talk  too much about solutions, so any  or all of those topics are fair  game.  Any questions about any of the  other things that I've talked  about already I'd be happy to  take questions and entertain  other ideas.  Yeah.  >> Is the McCain Feingold bill  working or not working?  Can you talk about that?  >> Yeah, the McCain Feingold  bill on campaign finance reform  I think had a lot of very good  ideas about what it was trying  to accomplish and I think it has  been somewhat successful but has  also failed on some counts in  terms of being comprehensive  reform.  And the problem with campaign  finance reform generally has  often been described as the  water balloon image, that if you  squeeze on the money at one  point it just pops out of a  different part of the system.  If you try to squeeze it down  here, it's just going to pop out  somewhere else.  Well the place it has been  popping out lately are the  independent groups, the 527  groups and so on that are just  flooding the airwaves with their  independently funded ads. 

 That's something that the McCain  Feingold didn't really address.  Probably the biggest success  that the McCain Feingold did  have was to regulate the soft  money contributions that had  been the biggest sort of  corrupting influence in the  process before the law was  passed.  These were the big million  dollar contributions that were  going into the political  parties, but now there are other  ways of getting around that as  well, going through state party  organizations, funneling money  -- the bundled contributions now  are getting more and more common  as a way of exceeding limits.  And so while I think McCain  Feingold was a really good step  in the direction of reforming  the process on the campaign  finance side, more needs to be  done now because of the new ways  that people have come up with to  kind of skirt those laws.  Yeah.  >> First, why do we need an  electoral college at all?  Two, you brought up voter fraud.  I mean, I don't think it's a  partisan issue.  I think -- proved there was  absolute fraud in Florida, there  were issues in Ohio in the last  presidential election.  We hear lots about lots of  states already purging their  voting rolls and then the  sub prime mortgages and people  having no addresses.  I don't see the point of -- what  did we have a 55% turnout in  eliminating anyone from voting  except for them voting twice. 

 >> Right, right.  >> And I don't think that's as  big a danger as...  >> And on the electoral  college, I agree with you.  I would be completely in favor  of getting rid of it entirely  and just having straight popular  vote.  The problem with that is that  there are enough states that  would not go along with it that  it wouldn't pass.  That's why people have tried to  come up with these clever ideas  about the state compacts and so  on that if you can get enough  states to go along, you could  have the effect of basically  getting rid of the electoral  college without actually getting  rid of it.  And so yeah I agree with the  simple approach would be great  but just politically it's not  viable because there are enough  states that wouldn't go along.  That's why this other approach  is being used.  On the voter fraud and whether  or not this is a legitimate  issue or just kind of partisan  smoke screen, I think the  amazing thing about the voter  fraud arguments that have been  brought in a federal court so  far is that they haven't even  been required to provide  evidence of voter fraud in like  the voter ID case in Indiana for  example that was upheld in  Indiana that a federal court  upheld the new voter ID law  there, that the people who were  arguing against the law said  well it's rally going to  disenfranchise the elderly and  students and minorities to a  greater extent than the general  population.  And the court ruled that even  having the potential for fraud,  that's all the state had to  prove was the potential for  fraud was enough to then require  that the IDs, even with the  potential for voter suppression. 

 I think that what's going to  happen is that in this election,  we actually will have evidence,  there are a lot of people who  are very worried about this  topic.  And a lot of people are really  on top of this right now, so  they are going to be looking for  cases of you know elderly  veterans and nuns and people who  are really nice, wholesome  people who are being denied the  right to vote.  They're going to make these  people kind of front and center  poster children for the vote  suppression argument.  And you're going to have new  cases being brought in federal  courts after 2008 that are  actually going to have real  people who were denied the right  to vote because of these laws.  And I think some of these laws  will be struck down.  But it is going to I think  unfortunately take another  election cycle before that  happens because right now the  courts have allowed a very broad  burden of proof for the state to  meet for these laws to go into  effect that I think undoubtedly  will have the effect of keeping  some people from the polls.  And the idea of provisional  ballots really isn't a solution  either because there are a lot  of states that have shown that  provisional ballots end up not  getting counted, that yeah if  you go to the polls and you  think you're on the rolls but  you're not, and so they don't  let you cast a regular vote, but  you have to cast this  provisional ballot and you think  you've voted, but then in a lot  of states they end up not  counting them anyway.  And in some states now you  actually have to go down to the  county clerks office within 24  hours to show, you know bring  your legitimate ID in order to  have your provisional ballot  count, and so, who's going to  bother to do that?  You know they're just not going  to go, and so I think we will  have many more cases brought  after this election, and my  sense is that some of those will  be overturned then, but we could  have a definite impact on voter  turnout because of some of these  laws.  >> I mean it seems to me that  any kind of reform, and I love  the idea of moving around who  gets to have the first primaries  will never happen because as  long as there are incumbents in  power, they're not going to vote  for any type of change.  So what do those of us who --  how can you ball it up from the  grassroots?  >> Yeah, great point. 

 And I think especially on  campaign finance the question of  incumbency is critical there  because the campaign finance  system really does help the  status quo and so there is where  I think one of the real problems  lies with campaign finance  reform is that a lot of  incumbents are not going to be  in favor of that because they  like the status quo.  The question of the nomination  process of kind of rotating the  sequence, there it's not so much  incumbent v.  non-incumbents, it's more Iowa,  New Hampshire against the world.  You know they don't want to give  up their being first status and  there are a lot of states now  that are in favor of this idea  though.  And so if you can get -- if you  can literally make it 48 against  two you know I think there might  be enough pressure to change the  system there to make it happen.  Because I think there is enough  concern about that that maybe it  will happen.  In terms of how to put pressure  on the incumbents for something  like campaign finance reform.  It just needs to be something  that our politicians hear more  about.  And this is what the reformers  -- anyone from the League of  Woman Voters here today?  Okay, because this has been on  the League of Women Voters'  agenda for a long time --  campaign finance reform, and  I've been to a couple of the  sessions around the state with  the League of Women Voters that  they've hosted on reform and one  thing that always comes up is  the fact that politicians don't  care about this issue because it  never registers in the public  opinion polls of what the most  important problems are.  It's always down in the low  single digits, you know 2-3% of  the country is really worried  about this as an issue. 

 So until they hear about it and  then have enough people who  contact them and say you know  we're tired of the way that the  money system works, it won't  change.  And they need to hear from more  of their constituents, and they  need to know that this is really  something that people care about  and until that happens, it's not  going to change.  Yeah.  >> One other thing in terms of  what you talked about the small  states and so forth, it seemed  to me that Sarah Palin's speech  -- that she really started  pushing that in terms of you  know those of us in the rural  areas etc, etc.  And then I heard about a  commentator talk about the class  war or the culture war would not  be what it was in terms of a  religious and so forth of the  80s and 90s but it would be this  small state rural v.  urban thing.  And you know it's a smart  strategy because the small  states have so much more  representation in the electoral  college the way that it is.  But you're saying that Obama is  ahead now based on --  >> The electoral vote  right now, yes.  As of today.  But it's getting closer. 

 It's closer than it was a couple  weeks ago.  But no I think you're right.  There does seem to be more of an  urban rural divide in this  election because of Palin than  in any recent election that I  can think of.  And so that is something that  the McCain Palin ticket seems to  be emphasizing and tying that to  some of the themes from 2004,  you know the family values, this  is the real America and the kind  of values that more people  endorse at least in national  polls.  And so there I think trying to  not only solidify their base in  the rural parts of the country  but also an appeal to the people  that live in larger cities too  that might share some of those  values.  And it's -- it'll be interesting  to see if that works because it  does seem to be working so far.  There's no doubt that she's made  a real splash in this campaign.  Yeah.  >> I don't know if you can  really answer this, but maybe  you can give us some perspective  on the fact that we seem to be  bombarded with a lot of false  information, you know.  One of the first emails I heard  was that Palin was a  creationist. 

 Now, there's a part of me that  wants to believe that, but then  I read something from a  respectable newspaper the next  day that said that that was just  a rumor, that's not true.  You know, her husband or some  other friends or whatever.  And it just seems like we're  just getting inundated with you  know McCain shifting his  position, Obama retreating a  little bit from something he  asserted earlier.  And is it really a function of  the electronic age or has it  always been that way?  >> No, that's exactly what I was  going to say.  I think it's entirely a function  of the Internet and the bloggers  and there's just a huge range  now of different information  sources that's available.  And these information sources  you know the bloggers now have  become a huge source of a lot of  these rumors.  In fact, you know the one McCain  Palin ad that was run after the  lipstick flap about the lipstick  on a pig thing where they show  -- I don't know how many of you  have seen this ad, but the  wolves are like running through  the woods, and Barack Obama is  basically a wolf that is coming  after Sarah Palin.  And with all the terrible things  that are being said about Palin,  and in that ad, the McCain Palin  ad has a quote  from factcheck.org which is one  of the really good organizations  out there that tries to keep  the process clean.  And they do criticize both sides  for their ads, and they're  really outstanding.  So that's one answer already to  your question. 

 If you want to find out where  the -- who's being truthful,  factcheck.org  I have a lot of  respect for.  I think they do an excellent  job.  But in that ad they misuse  factcheck.org  who is actually criticizing a  blogger, and factcheck.org  was criticizing the bloggers  that were saying some of the  stuff about Palin that wasn't  true.  And so in the McCain Palin ad  they have a picture of Barack  Obama up there and it says  "-- attacks against Sarah  Palin" -factcheck.org.  Well the attacks were made by  the bloggers and that's what  fact check was criticizing,  not Obama.  And so it was a real twisting of  what was going on, but rooted in  the blogger.  So the bloggers were the source  of that on the democratic side.  Because there's a lot of over  the top stuff that happens on  both sides for sure.  And I think it is this huge  range of sources we have now is  digging up a lot of stuff that  some is true, some is not true,  and to sift through it all  becomes very difficult.  It was a lot easier back when we  had three networks. 

 You know it was ABC, NBC, and  CBS when I was growing up.  That was it.  I mean that was the only news  you had, that and your local  paper, so you had to look  through -- and what?  >> PBS.  >> PBS, right.  Although no, when I was growing  up we didn't have PBS in  Indiana, sorry.  But anyway, you basically had  five things you could look at  and that was it.  Yeah.  >> How do you feel about moving  election day to a weekend day or  even having the polls open over  several days to increase  participation?  >> Yeah, I think the weekend  election idea is a really good  idea.  I think having it on a Saturday  would be a really good way to  increase turnout.  One thing on the multiple days,  already in a lot of states you  have early voting that is so  easy where the polls -- I mean  people are voting already right  now in the presidential election  in some states because either by  no questions asked absentee  voting which ends up being like  early voting, or in some states  they have actual polling places  that are open for like a month  where you can just go in  shopping malls and other places,  you can go stop by and vote  anytime for like the month  before the election. 

 And so there are some states  that are going in that direction  already, and I think the more we  do -- I'm kind of with you, the  more we can do to encourage  people to vote, the better it's  going to be for the country  overall.  Because our turnout rate, 55% is  among the lowest of any  democracy in the world.  And so I think the more things  we can do, Saturday election,  keeping polling places open  longer.  That's all for the good,  absolutely.  >> Do you know if more states  are moving towards almost the  system that we have set up here  in Wisconsin where you can go  the day of the election and  register to vote that day -- and  not only that, you don't have to  register for a particular party  because that's a major turnoff  especially to young people who  don't want to be affiliated at  all with either party and would  like to be able to vote one  party for one office, one party  for another thing.  The thought of just voting down  the ballot is almost archaic.  >> Right.  No, absolutely.  There are a few more states now  that have the same day  registration.  There's still only a handful. 

 I think there are about four or  five states in the country that  have same day registration, but  it's getting a lot of  discussion, and there are -- I  think there are one or two  states that are starting it for  the first time in 2008, and so  maybe this is an idea that will  spread because I think it is a  way to again make it easier for  people to vote.  You can leave it up to the last  minute, go register right there  at the polls.  The question of open v.  closed registration whether you  have no party registration or if  you have to register by party --  in those states that have party  registration, there is an option  of registering as an independent  basically, so you still can do  that for the general election,  even in a state that requires  party registration.  >> That's seen tremendous  upturn...  >> Yes, yes, more  independents yeah in the last  couple of decades, absolutely.  That's right.  Yeah.  >> Any insight into how the same  day registration might mesh with  the situation with this lawsuit  requiring a mesh of the voter  registration lists with the  Department of Transportation.  A couple of observations. 

 One is I understand that four of  the six members of the  Government Accountability Board  tested that and it didn't match.  And I live in the Village of  Shorewood Hills, and we had a  village board meeting last night  at which the village clerk  reported that she had spent more  than half an hour trying to  check out and reconcile these  two different databases with  respect to prospective voters.  She knew that -- or she said she  did who was entitled to vote.  We have 1200 voters and a very  small staff, and what happens if  Madison has to go through all of  this or Milwaukee, and on  election day or before?  >> Right.  No, it could be a disaster.  It really could be a disaster if  you have -- because you won't  have the inability to actually  match them up in real time in a  way that will allow you to sift  for errors.  All that will happen is it will  get kicked back and say well it  doesn't match and then you'll  have to cast a provisional  ballot, and then you have to go  24 hours later to be able to  verify who you are if you don't  have IDs with you.  And so yeah, no it could be a  huge problem.  I know this is something you've  researched a lot and do you want  to add into that?  >> There are a lot of things  that are bad about the proposals  that we made, but what should be  done with the mismatches between  the two databases.  >> Well I think at this point  that because we've all had just  a few weeks now people have been  looking into this. 

 It really sort of first came up  in discussion back in August at  the Government Accountability  Board meetings and then this  lawsuit was just filed what --  less than about 10 days ago or  something and so this really is  just getting a lot of attention  right now, and so I think there  just needs to be basically a way  to allow people who have voted  in the past and claim that they  have legitimately voted, to let  them vote in this election and  then clean up the database  mismatches in the next election.  Because they're going to be so  many false positives that  basically I've been told that  even a middle initial being  different in the two databases  will cause it to kick out, or if  you have the space between like  you have a last name that is  hyphenated -- and so maybe in  one case it would not have the  hyphen, in another case it would  and have a space instead of a  hyphen.  That would be enough to kick it  out.  And so there are all kinds of  potential false mismatches here  that I think make it so hundreds  and thousands of people could be  affected, and so my solution  would be simply to let people  vote in this election and get  the database fixed for the next  election because otherwise I  think you will just have chaos.  >> In the future you're still  going to have a lot of  mismatches.  It is going to be a continual  thing.  Eventually you're going to have  to figure out a way to deal with  that.  >> Yeah.  And I think probably what you'll  have to have is real time access  to the database where you can  actually see then rather than  just kicking back this is a  mismatch.  You can actually see okay, this  is David Canon. 

 This is David T. Cannon,  oh, same person and then  let them vote.  One of the other mismatches that  came up that I read about in the  paper in addition to the four of  the six accountability board  members who didn't match up was  a woman who had the same name  and birthday of someone else in  Racine I think it was.  And just, I don't know if you're  Jill Smith or something there is  probably going to be another  Jill Smith in the state that was  born on your day and so that's  going to kick out even if both  Jill Smiths were legitimate  voters, the database bumps out  the less recent one, so the more  recent one stays in, the less  recent one gets bumped out.  So, it's a problem.  And I think there going to have  to have the ability to have  access to those databases, both  databases at the polls in real  time.  I think that's going to be the  only way ultimately to do this,  but that's going to take a lot  of money to be able to do that,  so I'm not sure what the  solution is.  >> (inaudible)  >> That's true  that maybe you could do that  when you actually register to  vote you'll be accessing that  database then so the information  will be entered the same.  That's true.  That would be a long term  solution that would work.  >> That exactly happened to me  last week. 

 I have voted at the same poll  for 42 years.  I was a poll worker there for 10  years and I went to vote last  week, and I was not on the poll  list.  >> Oh my gosh.  >> They couldn't even -- no  explanation.  >> Wow.  >> And her name is Smith.  >> Wow.  Oh my gosh.  >> I had to re-register.  >> And they didn't know why?  >> No, nobody had any  explanation. 

 >> That has happened with too  many people in our polling  place.  So almost all the new  registrations for people who had  previously voted, some for 30,  40 or more years.  >> Well they're telling everyone  to bring ID to the polls in  November.  Bring ID because there are going  to be problems.  And if you don't have ID then  you will have to cast a  provisional ballot, at least the  way things are set up right now.  So yeah, we need to get the word  out to everyone to bring ID on  election day.  >> What I would suggest to those  people who were left off the  polls.  you wonder who to complain to  and well, the Government  Accountability Board, but  they're not going to make a lot  of noise about it because it's  their poll list.  Within the city of Madison, I  suggest you come to the meeting  of the Madison Election Advisory  Committee, explain what happened  and ask the committee in  November to record each and  every incident of this on the  inspector's log and then have  the city, at their leisure, not  necessarily at the end of  November but when they catch  their breath in December and  January, accumulate all of these  and get some data on it and  start making a case.  >> Yeah. 

 That's going to be the type of  thing that's happening state by  state you know where people are  going to start overturning some  of these regulations and showing  that there really is a burden  that's being place on the voters  here that is going to keep some  people from having their votes  counted.  Yeah.  >> All of these electronic  issues are not touching some of  the real issues where there is  genuine fraud.  For example, someone I know  worked in -- she worked for  something where she worked in  various nursing homes in Dane  County during the 2004 election,  and she said that nurses that  were in favor of Bush had  patients who didn't know what  they were doing fill out  absentee ballots where things  like this are happening.  And then we have all of the  problems with our university  students who for example, my son  and his girlfriend who voted in  the primary-- she was a student  and she lived out of town.  She has graduated.  Her real home is in Westfield,  she lives with us right now.  She's afraid to do an absentee  ballot because she's afraid it  won't get counted and she  doesn't know where to go or what  to do.  And that's just a small example  of many more complicated issues.  >> No, there are a lot of issues  that definitely need to be  worked out in terms of access to  the polls and how to handle  these various concerns and these  are all good examples. 

 Yes.  >> This isn't as "sexy" as the  voter fraud kind of thing, but I  was really puzzled by the action  by Florida and Michigan because  they made their decisions about  the primary with their eyes wide  open.  There were no secrets with the  party about it and they knew  that they were putting their  voters, their delegates at risk  and yet they went ahead.  >> Right, and then made a huge  stink about it when they  actually enforced the rule that  they told they were going to  enforce.  Yeah, I know.  That whole process was one of  the sillier moments I thought of  the whole nomination process and  the way that that worked out.  It showed how difficult a time  the national parties have to  enforce any party rules on the  states that the states don't  want to go along with.  And eventually they did cave in  initially by saying oh, we'll  count half your delegates and  then at the convention they  ended up counting them all  anyway.  And so it really did reveal I  think the weakness of the  parties' ability to enforce  those rules but I also think it  shows that the states are  unwilling to sort of play by  rules that do make some sense.  And that like you said, they  went in with their eyes wide  open. 

 They knew what was going to  happen.  They should have known what was  going to happen.  They were told what was going to  happen but yet they did it  anyway and then when the rule  was enforced, they didn't want  to deal with those consequences.  No, I agree.  I think it was a ridiculous,  ridiculous situation.  So, yeah.  >> At the onset of the election,  you said that 18% of Americans  favored leaving the United  States, ceding from the United  States.  I take that with a grain of salt  because up in northern Wisconsin  where I graduated high school in  Manitowoc, there was a lot of  talk about northern Wisconsin  and upper Michigan seceding and  becoming a separate state.  And perhaps that 18% that  initially agreed with that view.  But by the time the consequences  showed up and all that, it seems  to have all petered out. 

 >> Well that's a very good  point, and in fact, when I saw  that poll I kind of wondered as  well how much of that was really  a legitimate view and how much  was people kind of just blowing  off steam, and if it really came  down to the actually decision of  seceding from the United States,  I can't imagine the number would  be as high as 18%.  People joke about moving to  Canada all the time.  If my candidate doesn't win that  I want to win then I'm going to  move to Canada.    I doubt very many of those  people end up moving to Canada.  So the same kind of thing with  seceding from the Union.  I think you're probably right  that if you had the actual  numbers of how many people  really would when push came to  shove decide they wanted to not  be a part of the United States  anymore my guess would be much  smaller than 18%.  But that number got my  attention, a lot higher than I  would have guessed even if  people weren't entirely serious  about it.  To tell a pollster that yeah I  think that I would support my  state seceding from the union.  That was higher than I would  have guessed, that's for sure.  Yeah. 

 >> The word right is rather  ambiguous because it doesn't  mean anything.  I mean to have the right to do  something doesn't imply that  you're going to do it, so it  sort of cancels out the whole  question of a right.  >> Well, right but there were  two questions.  The first one was the right to  secede and that was supported by  20%.  But then they asked a follow up  -- because you're right, if you  just leave it at that, that's  pretty meaningless.  But, they did follow it up then  with the question that you were  referring to, the 18% that said  I would personally support a  secessionist movement in my  state.  And so there you are actually  taking the abstract principle of  a right to secede and putting it  into the action of if there was  such a movement, would I support  it, and the number only goes  down from 20-18%, so 2% say we  go from that abstract concept to  actually supporting it, I no  longer want to do that, but  still 18% were saying if there's  such a movement in my state, I  would support seceding from the  Union.  Not the right to secede but  actually the secession movement  itself, and that's the part that  was kind of shocking.  >> (inaudible) It a little bit  more depends on what is actually  proposed or what is happening.  >> Yeah. 

 Well I guess I mean the question  is should we be part of the  United States anymore or not and  so you have these secessionist  movements in Texas and  California, Vermont, Alaska.  Go down the list, there's a  secessionist movement in most  states.  And they literally don't want to  be part of the United States  anymore.  The California people point out  that they'd be the fifth largest  country in the world in terms of  GDP if they became a country  instead of a state.  >> Just try it, right.  >> Right.  >> Is there someway to  strengthen the participation of  a third party or minority party  participation I mean they seem  to have a low enough threshold  to get on the ballot, but after  they get on they have no  credibility and not only don't  they have much money, but they  won't let them participate in  the debates.  I mean they're really  disenfranchised.  >> No, right.  And there is where -- the third  parties in this country have a  structural disadvantage, and  that structural disadvantage is  rooted in the nature of our  electoral system. 

 The fact that we have the  plurality of winner take all  election where rather than  proportional representation,  that fact alone makes it almost  impossible for parties to  succeed in this country.  So really in any country that  has a plurality winner take all  election system where whoever  gets the most votes wins that  election, you almost always have  a two party system just because  of the wasted vote phenomenon  that you know a third party has  to go against that logic of the  wasted vote that you know if you  vote for a third party candidate  and you know your candidate is  not going to win then you are  potentially helping elect the  candidate you really don't want.  And so people would rather vote  for the lesser of two evils in  many cases rather than a third  party candidate they really  support.  So until we would actually have  a different method of electing  people to office: proportional  representation, cumulative  voting, something like that.  Third party candidates really  don't have much of a chance  because of that structural  disadvantage.  Yeah.  >> (inaudible)  >> Yes, there are  a couple of different -- there's  the -- method is one,  the single transferable vote is  another, cumulative voting is  another.  There are a lot of different  ways where -- and these are  actually used in some local  elections.  There are a quite a few cities  around the country now that use  some variation of those  different methods of allowing  people to express the intensity  of their preferences for  candidates in addition just to  the direction of it, and that  definitely helps third party  candidates when you have that.  But then we're back to your  point about the incumbents. 

 You're never going to get that  adopted nationally say for the  US Congress for example because  they wouldn't want it.  Yeah.  >> If people were interested in  any of these or all of them, are  there organizations that are  working on these?  Who should they join?  >> Well the League of Women  Voters is on a lot of these  issues definitely is involved  with quite a few of -- probably  most of what I've talked about  in fact.  In addition to one I didn't talk  about, redistricting is another  thing that they're involved with  as well.  And so here in Wisconsin that's  one that has a good reform  agenda.  Common Cause is another one  nationally that is involved with  probably if not all most of  these issues.  There are others that have more  of a partisan flavor to them.  Those are two probably of the  best non partisan ones that have  good national reputations.  Yeah.  >> Having studied political  science a long time ago, the  1960 presidential debate was  always highlighted as the first  televised debate, and I hear  there was a real genuine debate  between the two. 

 And it seems like over the  years, the debates have just  become another -- they're not  really debates in anybody's kind  of logical sense.  They're just another form for  each candidate to say what they  want to say, regardless of the  question.  How did that happen?  >> I think things have gotten  better in the last couple  election cycles I think,  especially in the primaries.  I thought some of those Obama  Clinton debates were excellent.  And they really had some good  exchanges.  Where the moderator would throw  out a question, let them go at  it -- they went back and forth.  I thought there were some really  good discussions and debates  there, and they had so many of  them.  They had I don't know was it 20  some?  It was a huge number that they  actually held and so -- and some  of those formats really were a  much more open exchange than the  presidential debates that we've  had recently.  But the other format that I  think has been somewhat more  successful recently are the town  hall formats for the  presidential debates where  you'll have people from the  audience asking questions  because for whatever reason I  think candidates have a harder  time dodging questions from  people than they do from you  know one of the talking heads.  Right, exactly. 

 And so when it's an American  citizen sort of looking them in  the eye and saying you know why  are you cutting my funding for  education or why are you raising  my taxes or whatever, they have  a harder time you know talking  about the price of gas or  something instead.  And so I think that town hall  format has kept the candidates  more on topic and on question  than some of the other formats.  Now I would agree with you that  some of the other more standard  formats do end up being more  like just the candidates say  what they want to say with their  stump speech you know kind of  snippets that they have, but I  think that we are getting a  better quality of debate now  than we had maybe 10 years ago.  Really it was pretty bad back in  the late 80s and early 90s there  were some pretty awful ones.  But, yeah.  >> Wouldn't say having a sort of  third party come in sort of  disrupt the buoyant-ness of just  having two parties and having  them say whatever they want to  say?  >> Yeah.  >> I'm going to give Nader as an  example because I think he's  very bright.  >> Yeah, there's no doubt it  can spice things up.  I mean if you remember back to  the Perot debates where Ross  Perot was included in some of  the debates.  It definitely was a livelier  affair I think. 

 The problem with the debates  including all the third parties  is where do you draw the line  because you can't, as we also  found out in this election  cycle, it's chaos when you have  twelve people on stage.  Nothing happens.  It's just really ridiculous and  no one gets a chance to say  anything and so how do you  decide if the communist workers  party, the socialist party, the  libertarian party, the green  party, we have 15-20 different  parties that are running for  president in any given year.  You couldn't have a stage with  all 20 parties up there.  That simply wouldn't work.  And so the way that the  commission on debates has done  it in the past is to have a  viability rule where they say  you know you have to at least  have some chance of having an  impact on the election, and  they've set the cut-off at  different places for the percent  you need in the polls or  whatever.  And so by that criteria, Perot  was included in '92 and '96 but  then you wouldn't include say  Nader or Pat Buchanan or some of  the other candidates we've had  in recent years.  And that's unfortunate because I  think you're right.  Having a third party candidate  does spice things up in the  debate, but then in the  practical world of where do you  draw the line then in terms of  excluding some third parties and  including others.  It's a difficult call. 

 >> Now, if everything is on  cable, if you don't have cable  you're, or if you don't have a  computer -- well you can go to  the library, but I mean a number  of people are really  short-changed and then you can  never hear the debates even if  you want them.  So I think there should be more  time allotted evenly to  televisions stations of the  three networks (inaudible).  >> You're right.  >> I mean it should be -- the  airwaves are not exactly free.  >> One good exception to that is  Wisconsin Public Radio.  They do an outstanding job of  having all the candidates on for  major offices.  They have usually like an hour  segment at some point in the  election process they'll have  the minor party candidates on.  So they make a real effort to  reach out to every minor party  candidate and give them an hour  of their air time with the call  in shows from listeners.  And so that would be one  exception to your general point  which is correct.  >> That there's no exchange  between... 

 >> Well, it's not a debate.  That's true, it's not a debate.  But it is a chance for them to  get their views heard at least.  (inaudible)  >> Thank you so much.  >> Alright well thank you.