tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN December 19, 2016 10:00am-10:51am EST
day. at edition exactly your way 7:00 tomorrow morning. we'll see you then. c-span is live at donald trump's home in florida. the place where he and his family are spending the holidays . some news coming from the truck administration today, the president-elect will nominate vincent viola as the next secretary of the army. mr. viola served as an army infantry officer and he is the founder of virtue financial. even turn to c-span to watch the confirmation hearings as they get underway during the 115th congress as members consider mr.
trump's nominees. theng up at the top of hour, c-span coverage of a few of today's of electoral college gatherings starting at 10:50 a.m. with a preview and we will go live to illinois and later pennsylvania and michigan as a lectors gather in their state's capitals. on c-span andthat if you missed the electoral college gatherings we will show them again tonight at eigh 8:00 eastern time. in about half hour we would your remarks from air force secretary debra lee james speaking at the atlantic council in washington, d.c. you can watch that attend: 30 eastern on c-span2. >> tonight on the communicators -- >> if we had to strike two relations to do so, which can be done, we have a lot of regulations that can go. we'll have a much more effective and efficient agency and more opportunities for providers to serve consumers.
>> michael o'rielly talks about how the ftc may change under the truck administration. he's interviewed by david cal. cyberot of concern around security. it is getting a particular attention. does the fcc have a role in that? >> i think it is an important issue. congress has been aggressive on trying to find the right solutions. i think other agencies are doing so as well. the fcc's role is relatively limited by the statute that governs us, the community should act of 1934. while i believe the government has a role to monitor and potentially provide additional fixes in the space, they are not authorized by the law for us to do it. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2.
in-depth willy 1, feature a live discussion on the presidency of barack obama. taking phone calls or tweets and facebook questions. our panel includes april ryan, what has corresponded for urban radio networks. author of, presidency in black and white. andessor eddie glad pulitzer prize winning journalist and associate editor of the washington post david ofinus, offer of "-- author barack obama, the story. >> starting shortly, live coverage of the electoral college but while we wait for things to get underway here is a preview of today's gatherings from today's washington journal. host: we will continue our discussion on the electoral
college with two guests, james hulme, local attorney in town and author of an op-ed taking a look at the college in support of it. john koza of the national .opular vote movement thanks for joining us today. could you give us your take on the role of the college not only as it was intended but it's role today, mr. kozak, you go first. mr. koza: the founders intended the college to be a meeting of wealth, aristocratic committee stature. the notion was there were going to deliberate in small groups around the country and select the best candidate for president. that lasted for exactly eight years until washington left to read a conflict between competing candidates in 1796 between adams and jefferson we got to the current system, which
is that the candidates were nominated by their congressional caucus on a national level and the presidential electors became a willing rubberstamps to vote for the candidate that belonged to their party. host: you are saying as far as intention is concerned, what about today? is it necessary to have that kind of current set up or set of originally introduced? mr. koza: its purpose has totally changed. now it is a method for counting votes. most states have this winner take all rule which awards all of the state's electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes inside the state. mr. hulme: it's interesting, the original intention was not inessarily a popular vote 1792 which was the second presidential election. only two states held popular vote. there were 15 at the time.
for -- thatd continued for a number of years. says 1800 was a , watershed because of the election that year was decided by the house because the electoral votes deadlocked. after that, the 12th amendment to refine the system. no real inclination to get rid of the electoral college. it was refined so that we have what is now our current system. the party system is what developed and substantially changed it. the issues i think we will talk about today were the same ones in 1787 when the constitution was debated and created. that is big state versus small state urban area versus rural area. some of the issues that affect people's thinking on the electoral college. host: you both heard about calls for changes. especially in light of the last election. mr. hume, you co-authored an
op-ed saying even as it was back then it is still a necessary part of president shall politics today are you make the case. days --e: the candidacy the candidates these days are campaigning for electoral votes, not popular votes. that is what drive the current campaigns and is more sophisticated with the ability to project and determined electorate by computers down to almost the individual house votes. the main issue really is that the electoral college serves as a means of creating regional diversity and does protect smaller states from larger states which is the main thing that drove it. you can take the current election. whatever you think of the outcome, at the present time and we are still counting votes college is one of the problems with popular votes. hurry clinton's margin is about 3 million votes. she carried california by 4 million votes by itself.
in 2000 the margin was only about half million votes. how gore carried new york and california by more than that. one way of asking this, he say to a voter, are you going to have california decide who's president, you get a very question. that is what the electoral college at the present time serves to protect. it provides for regional diversity. a candidate cannot just focus on high population areas. host: mr. koza you are part of a movement, national popular vote, what is it and what do you think of the idea of a regional sense of elections rather than person by person? mr. koza: the national popular vote legislation -- state legislation does not abolish the electoral college. it changes the state winner take all laws so the presidential electors would be selected on the basis of the popular vote in
all 50 states and the district of columbia. this would go into effect when states having 270 electoral votes, the majority, would adopt the same law. host: how many states have signed up? with 165 so far, 11 electoral votes so we are seeking additional states hoping to get 105 more electoral votes. host: why is that a better way? mr. koza: it's a better way because the constitution has a built-in mechanism for reform. it gave the states exclusive power to determine the method of awarding electoral votes. the states have used different methods over the years. some of the states at the beginning had the governor involved in picking the electors. some of the states, the legislature picked the electors or they did it by district and so forth. the states have the power. we think it is good power for
the states to have. we would like to have the state change from winner take all to a system of national popular vote. host: two guests joining us. john koza of national popular vote and james hulme, an attorney in town. ecole offered the pc can find at the washington post website in defense of the electoral college. both of these gentlemen to talk about the college. if you what to ask a question, call the lines (202) 748-8001 , for republicans and (202) 748-8000 for democrats and (202) 748-8002 for independents. what do you think about this idea of the state wanted to adopt or amend the way they proportioned or parse out votes even if keeping the college in tact as a whole remains? mr. hulme: i think it's being done because in order to remove electoral college you have to have 38 states agree and that would be an amendment to the constitution. most people can see it is highly unlikely. it is a workaround. there are numerous problems with
it, practical and i will call a -- i will call them political. practical, we are still counting votes. in a close election like 2000, where you had over 100 million votes cast and the difference is half a million. in most states, that would require a recount. there is not enough time between november and mid december to count the votes nationwide. you have to count in the entire country and recount them. i do not think that is workable. the other problems on the popular vote. i thickened be a destabilizing influence. right now the electoral college because of the requirement that you have to get absolute majority, you tend to get two candidates. with a direct popular vote you have 12 candidates and under this proposal a candidate who came up with 9% of the popular vote being the most would be elected president. think that would be very
destabilizing and we cannot for see all the problems that would cause. that is more the benefits of the electoral college. not only regional diversity is that we are the united states of america and not a people of -- not the united people of america. we have states as primary form of government. the college is a stabilizing influence. i would be concerned about getting rid of that. host: i want to bring in a caller. independent line. sterling, new york. jackson, you are first. go ahead. caller: you cannot get rid of the electoral college. it is the only real checks and balances we have left. it keeps the northeast from heavily voting clinton and then the rest of the country has no say. the founding fathers had it right. what's really upsetting to me is i heard on your last segment, obama is saying that california should have more senators then wyoming. everybody has 2 senators and we should know this and it is based -- and congress is based on your
population. as for as in the russians, this is the biggest liberal left a mind candyanda going. this is for idiot americans who can't comprehend the progressives are doing all they can to steal this election toward the clinton camp. host: thank you. mr. koza, if you wanted to take the first part about the checks and balances portion of the electoral college as it stands today. mr. koza: the only thing the electoral college jets and balances is the voters of the united states -- checks and balances are the voters of the united states. the american people are not going to elect the next president, 12 states are. in 2012, 100% of the general election campaign was directed into 12 states. it was virtually the same this year. there is 7% more presidentially
trolled federal grants to battleground states. twice as many disaster declarations. all kinds of policies where the free trade president like george bush is formed steel quotas or icefield real -- high-speed rail for segments of rail line in wisconsin, ohio, and florida that happened to be battleground states where the places where high-speed rail makes sense only -- the excel a corridor as a spectator states along the route. there are all kind of consequences to the current system that are adverse to the politics of the united states. mr. hulme: one thing out of a point out, it is interesting that very few, i will call them comparable democracies, elect their leader by national popular vote. the u.k., canada, there is no
popular vote for their national leader. we just saw a change in leader in the u.k. from mr. cameron to ms. may. there was no vote whatsoever. the two closest federal republics are modern-day germany and switzerland and neither of those countries elect their leader by direct national -- they use a system similar to direct popular vote. what we have. in 1787, that was the big debate. there was a group that wanted direct popular vote. there was a group that wanted congress to select the president. this was a compromise. we really have a triangular structure, the house chosen by the people, the senate chosen by the states. the president is an amalgamation of the two. it was a brilliant compromise. it is something i think should not be messed with. host: from ohio, dave is next. independent line. caller: top of the morning to you.
i have two statements or one statement and one question. i listen to you people so far. it sounds like we are too foolish to be able to select our president. two, why is it that the president is the only office in this country that is governed by the electoral college? why doesn't it go down to the states? thank you. mr. hulme: i think the structure of the electoral college is reflective of the fact that we are a federal system with now 50 states and districts that participate in that as well. the system was designed to allow the states because we are this federal system to have a major say in choosing the president. the major fear of those that did not want a direct popular election is they were afraid of creating a monarch. we have already seen what we have called the imperial presidency in past elections. -- in past administrations.
that is a concern, if you have direct election there is a fear , that this will upset the checks and balances and make it president far too popular. it is filtered now in is one of checks and balances. mr. koza: i guess you are arguing that under the current system residents are hobbled because they don't have it direct popular mandate. that is not valid. he mentioned relatively few countries have a nationwide popular vote. the fact is no country has a method of electing the president that resembles the electoral college. the system is simply one that evolved over time because of the state winner take all laws and has become distorted. that is why we have residential -- presidential campaigns that ignore three out of four americans, three out of four states, and why five out of our 45 presidents came into office
without having won the most votes nationwide. host: let's hear from's -- from seaside, california. democrat side, josh. you are on. caller: good morning. happy holidays to everybody. it is my understanding the electoral college was set up because of the southern states at that time had a lot of slaves, and their votes were almost notified down to 3/5 of a vote. in fact that part of the , constitution is still there. people seem to avoid that when they talk about it. i think the electoral college is really unconstitutional and should be removed and revoked. as we know, calling from california, we have 40 million
people here. you have the state of maine that has less than a million or so where 700,000 people is one vote. over there in maine are some like that it is maybe 200,000. it is unconstitutional. it means our vote does not count at all. host: his aspect of the college has a past with slavery. the two major reasons we have this electoral college are the issue of slavery and the fact that the southern states had relatively fewer people and more importantly had extremely strict property qualifications to vote. we have a system that is based on allowing southern states at the time in 1789 to get a
substantial share of the influence politically even though they let very few people vote in their states, and did not let any slaves vote. we have a system that arose because of population distribution, very high property qualifications that were in place of the time and of course slavery. host: the caller's argument? mr. hulme: we think that slavery really had nothing to do with the electoral college. there were two great debates during the constitutional convention about slavery, and the electoral college did not feature in either of them. the electoral college came late enough in the process of constitutional debate once it was realized by the popular vote nor election by the congress was really going to be something that a majority could endorse. it is really a mathematical combination of the house and senate. it has no more to do with slavery than the configuration of congress.
at the time the voters were male property owners in the country. when it came to apportionment we were counting women and children and this big debate about how you count slaves and native americans at the time. that was the compromise that had first been proposed of the articles of confederation. the slave states wanted to go -- wanted to count slaves as a complete person. preakness was the compromise. it decreased the southern if you have been able to count slaves as nonvoting women and children. host: you just heard from james hulme, in defense of the
electoral college. our other guest john koza, , founder of the national popular vote. vote.com is the website for that. republican line, steve, go ahead. caller: thank you. good morning. merry christmas to all. -- great to have somebody on with a wealth of knowledge read your spot on and i appreciate that. mr. koza, my comment is, i going -- by going state-by-state and trying to get the states involved, that is an end around of trying to get a popular vote. if you states like new york and california will control everything for the united states . i would like to know, is that your end goal come to get where two populous areas control what happens in's country for you and the liberal party because that's where it is going in my opinion?
mr. koza: there's a lot of miss impressions about the way the country is divided. in this most recent residential election there are only three places, wyoming, west virginia, in the district of columbia that were more than 62% in favor of either candidate. california and new york are not controlling anything either under the current system or under a popular vote. they represent less than 18% of the population of the country. , thisote in california year 62% democratic. in new york is 59%. the notion that these states are already or all blue is a distortion of the public. the fact is that except for the three places i mentioned, there is no state in the united states that is more than three to five
or the otherparty in there is reason why the minority in each state should have their votes suppressed and counted as if they voted for the opposing candidate under this winner take all rule which not only elects second-place candidates frequently but more portly in every presidential election it lead three out of four americans utterly irrelevant in the process of choosing the president. in his mind when he governs, because after your elected you are thinking of reelection or the election of your successor, the same battleground states and the transactional politics that distort american politics in favor of this handful of battleground states is really something that has to be changed. mr. hulme: it's interesting, if you look at the current map -- i'm not endorsing donald trump or hillary clinton, but if you look at the county maps of how they voted, the country is a sea
of red that the blue areas are just very small and basically isolated to the coast and a couple of other urban areas. a real issue arises with whether it is good for the country and political stability going forward, whether you're going to have a president elected when most of the country in terms of the geography and where people live and work with each other interact are really wanted the other candidate. with the electrodes college has and say forake that stability and all donald trump should be president because he was the one that most of the country wanted in terms of geography and where people are working. the reliance of the electoral college and having states participate i think is important. mr. koza: counties and land areas don't vote. people vote. the notion that the country is read in the middle and blue on the edges is an illusion. as i just said, there is no
state except for the three small places i mentioned that's more other.% one party or the there are plenty of democrats in texas. a huge number of republicans in california. this country has become very much divided because of this notion of red states and blue states. the fact is in every state there is a substantial minority of the other party and those voters should have their votes directly counted instead of pretending that their votes go to the candidate that a majority of their neighbors support. that is a tyranny of the majority that ought to be eliminated. mr. hulme: that is why i focused on the county maps because that breaks it down to a local area and you can see that the red areas predominate the country. likeeasy to have a slogan people vote, counties don't vote.
one man one vote. the political structure the founders developed is more complex than that. we have a stable three-legged stool. taking away the electoral college would cut out one of those legs and i think you know it happens when you take one letter away from a three-legged stool, it collapses. that is the fear here. we friendly don't know what would happen if you got rid of the electoral college. my production is it would not be good. host: let's hear from ann in new york. caller: i live in new york city. my vote for president has never counted. i'm not going to vote next time because my vote is not count. how can you say it is fair when the majority of the people twice now have voted for someone that was not elected president because the minority, the people in the swing states get to decide? how is that fair. ? mr. hulme: democracy, our structure was designed to
prevent what is called the tyranny of the majority. that is exactly one of the things the founders was working on. this only becomes an issue in a very close election. if you don't have a close election, say 1984 for some of the recent elections. it is not close. the electoral college diverges from the popular vote only happens when the election is divided. this protects from the so-called tyranny of the majority. i will say there is nothing wrong in that case the vote being decided by the states and how the people voted in the states. mr. koza: i don't think 3 million votes is a close election. the tyranny of the majority is a completely inappropriate term to be using here. the tyranny of the majority is the tyranny of the winner take all rule which causes the votes
of three out of five people in a forcal state being credited the candidate they opposed and did not vote for. the consequences of this winner take all system at the state level is the fact that the campaigns and governance of this country is dictated by what goes on in approximately 12 states at the presidential level. and the fact that we repeatedly get presidential candidates who do not receive the most votes nationwide. host: this is from houston, texas. independent line. good morning. caller: i support the electoral college as long as they do their job. otherwise what is the point? the 12th amendment says basically if no one has over 270 votes then the person with the highest number not exceeding three on the list of those voted
for as president, the house shall choose by ballot. i am hoping at least one elector can have the foresight to select somebody better than it -- better than a copper mise candidate. -- a compromise candidate. host: what you think this idea about electors not voting for the candidate their state requires them to? mr. hulme: let me endorse brian limas well. -- mr. koza: let me endorse brian as well. when the voter goes into the voting booth in all 50 states today they vote for a donald trump or hillary clinton or another named candidate, not for the individual presidential electors for generally unknown to the public. should honor the will of the people under
whatever law is in effect in a given year. i think the electors should vote away the public expected them to vote. mr. hulme: about half the states require the electors to vote -- attempt to require the electors to vote for pledged candidates. it would probably be very disruptive to have faceless collectors take over because that is not what the expectation is. transition has been working on -- it would be real tales that were to happen. if it were kicked over to the house the outcome would be the same. they vote by state the district of columbia at that point would be cut out. the statement have to decide the said,te -- as the caller
they get to choose among the top three so it would be donald trump, hillary clinton and anyone else who got electoral vote. the: we hear a lot from federalist papers these days especially intent of alexander hamilton and the electors. are the electors meant to be a last line of defense? mr. hulme: no doubt the original intention was that the electors would be a somewhat deliberative body, not as a whole but state-by-state. specifically in the constitution they have to meet in each state. that was clearly the intention that the electors would meet amongst themselves who they would support for president. that is not how it has grown once the party system develops and states started mandating them. mr. koza: i agree with what james just said. host: let's hear from pennsylvania. caller: good morning and god
bless. i just had a basic statement and comment. it seems that the electoral college is never in question until a party loses, then that party questions it. true governance comes from our congressional's whether it be , state or in congress in washington. in 2010, 2012, and 2014 the people voted for change. the republican party took over. 23 states, 31 governorships. every four years, if we don't like it, we could have started changing it before then. the people have spoken. in 2018 it is not going to be any different. until we start valuing human life and stop being nihilistic,
people will continue to ask for this change. can't bless you and thank you. mr. koza: god bless the caller. thank you. if i am sitting here thinking about the popular vote, my main fear is that if you rely just on the popular vote you will end up with a multiplicity of candidates. this quite real probability that you will have a president who is selected by a small plurality or portion of the country. that is not a good thing for democracy. mr. koza: james is way off. if we were having this discussion in 1789 when only four states elected their chief executive, perhaps youor, could raise this kind of scary scenario and hypothetical. the reality is we have had 5000 governor elections since then
and over 1000 since world war ii. in only 10% of the governor elections, which are elections in which every vote is equal and the candidate with the most votes wins without any intervening electoral college, in only 10% of the elections were less than 50% of the voters supporting the winner. and only 1% was less than 40% and no candidate for governor has won with less than 35% of the vote. there are no 9% u.s. senators, no 9% congressman. there are not even any 30% u.s. punishment or u.s. senators. it is completely a speculative and not supported by the relevant evidence, which is the governor's races to say that we will have 12 candidates for president.
the fact is that the basic plurality voting system that is used for virtually every other office in the united states, namely the candidate with the most votes wins. in country after country has been observed to sustain the two party system and produce elections where the candidates get either 50% or slightly less than the case in the third of our elections. host: you just heard from john koza, national popular vote. he is the cofounder, chairman and ceo of scientific games. i'm told you invented a technology . in 1973 and 1974, i invented the instant lottery ticket with my late partner dan bauer. we sold it to state after state. hulme.james
gettysburg college, one of the leading lincoln scholars. r afteratching bill mah the election and saw the attorney general on their talking about advocating abolition of it, and we came up with this op-ed piece. it's also in the philadelphia inquirer. the divided there too. host: trenton, florida, democrats line. charlie, you're next. caller: it is an interesting conversation. i think it needs to be more talk about. do you think the electoral college suppresses the vote in a way where in a lot of these states where people know their candidate is not going to win, and the votes are going to go to the other candidate if they do not bother to vote, i wonder if that is a reason why we only
have a 62% voting participation in some of the elections, the fact people don't think their vote is going to matter because it is already decided because the state is either blue or red? mr. hulme: that is an interesting question. we had one caller who indicated they are not voting because they feel their vote is not counting. on the other hand the turnout in the presidential elections tend to be the highest turnouts that we have. i think that suggests it does not have that effect. people should vote. they should not take the view of their vote does not count because we do have surprises and elections and they can be close in many states. something that would suppress the turnout. you may have the same thing happen if you went with a popular vote. forgone conclusion, my vote is not going to count because california will control the outcome. mr. koza: the facts are that turnout is 11% higher in the
closely divided battleground states, so there is evidence that comes from previous elections. i believe it will be very much the same this election. california tends to be the whipping boy this morning, the fact is that turnout was strange in california this year. for two reasons, one is that donald trump was not very popular, which tended to depress the republican turnout. we have this to system that was recently installed, and the only statewide race was between two democrats or the u.s. senate, which is a very strange race. one in six people who actually got to the polls did not even cast the vote for senate. there was a and or miss drop-off in republican votes in
california both because of the senate race, the fact that donald trump was not a good match for california, and the fact that in general republicans tend not to vote as much in california in presidential years because they are unfortunately the minority in california. host: this is from bethlehem, pennsylvania. larry. caller: i would like to state that the united states was formed to form a union. in the union all people should be considered equally. irishmen fought every state should get one vote and the district of columbia should get one vote but after listening to the talk on the show i feel it would be better if every state got three votes and the district of columbia to three votes and that way they could be proportional. you have to win at least a third of the vote in order to get the proportion. i go back to the election with al gore. everyone says it was too close in florida.
my answer to that is if al gore would have won his home state where people know him the best he would have been president. if you can't win 26% of the states -- 51% of the states, 25 states plus the district of columbia, you should not be president. mr. hulme: that's an interesting theory. basically taking the structure of the u.s. senate and transporting it to how the president is elected. i think the genius of the founders was the presidential election is combination of the house and senate. you have a population element and state element coming together to decide who the national leader should be. it is not dissimilar from switzerland and germany. they don't have direct popular election. i think that is what the system has worked as well as it has. host: let's go to ohio, doug. democrats line.
caller: i really don't have an opinion either way. i would like to point out that donald trump did win way more counties, but president-elect trump won 2300 counties, and secretary clinton won 500 counties. in the 500 counties that secretary clinton won over two thirds of the gdp comes from those 500 counties and less than one third comes from 2300 counties that donald trump won. you can just throw that into your discussion. mr. koza: while we are back to counties again which really have nothing to do with how elections
should be run for president, let's keep in mind that the 146 largest counties, which actually compose a majority of the people of the country, are only 59% democratic. with you look at it on the state basis or county basis of national basis this is an evenly divided country. we have had a series of close non-landslide elections. eight in a row since 1988. the total votes since 1928 is 827 million for republicans and 827 millions for the democrats. every person possible should matter. every vote should be equal. we should stop running presidential elections where three out of four americans are effectively left out of the process because the campaign takes place in a handful of states.
mr. hulme: i think the fear of the direct popular vote would be that the campaigning will take place on both coasts and that the middle part of the country will be ignored. nott now while there is active campaigning every state it is distributed across the country because there are different pockets whereas under the direct popular vote and time likely campaigning will happen in california, new york and east coast and maybe chicago which incidentally is interesting, that who is who has endorsed mr. koza's proposed bill. california and new york and some of the eastern and western states. it is not that middle part of the country which the electoral college is now to protect and give a voice to. mr. koza: it is the middle of the country in fact because all of the state that pass the bill so far have been spectator states that are utterly irrelevant in the presidential process. the ignored part of the country is three at four americans in three out of four states that are irrelevant in selecting the president. host: 11 states have signed on.
what other states are considering? mr. koza: it passed the arizona house this year with two thirds of the republicans sponsoring the bill and two thirds of the democrats. it passed the oklahoma senate. a few months ago it was repassed in the republican controlled new votes.nate by 57-four let's get back to this thing about new york and california. we know how presidential candidates campaign when every vote is equal and the candidate with the most votes wins. they don't go to the big cities in ohio. ask cities represent 52% of the population of ohio and they get 51% of the campaign visits. areas, areas outside the metropolitan statistical areas are 22% of the population of ohio and they get, i think it is 24%.
slightly more of the campaign effort. anybody who is ever run a campaign where every vote is equal and the candidate with the most votes wins knows that you campaign throughout the whole jurisdiction with the apps -- it would be nonsense for president of candidate in a popular vote to campaign in new york and california representing 18% of the country and ignoring 82% of the voters. healing time that happens is under the current system, where three out of four americans are irrelevant. .r. hulme: i disagreemr. hulme: campaigns have to be efficient and you are not going to campaign where your relative population is widely distributed. it's inefficient and there are not many people there. campaigns will go to where the votes are. right now they're going where the electoral votes are. electoral vote was designed to reflect a combination of the states and the people coming together to vote in that manner. host: elizabeth from farmington, michigan. caller: good morning.
has done ankoza excellent job in defending our popular vote. i do not have much to add to the conversation other than, if you would ask yourselves this question about today us procedure with the electoral college. accrued almostp 3 million more votes than hillary clinton and had the electors been going today to anoint or crown or confirm hillary clinton today, do you really think that would be happening? i believe no. i believe if donald trump had garnered more actual votes, we would not be holding this procedure today. that might tell us how honest this past election has been.
collegee: the electoral by law in the constitution has to meet today. the electors are meeting in each state. the do not meet together as a body. no matter how the popular vote, the electors have to cast their votes today and they are transmitted to congress and opened in early january so that is not going to change. that is the procedure. host: do either of you see in the country's near future a drastic change in the electoral college and how we do things? mr. koza: we hope that the national popular vote will bill replaces the state winner take all laws. we are not trying to abolish the electoral college we are trying , to change the way the presidential electors are selected so the electoral college represents the choice of the most americans in all 50 states and the district of colombia. mr. hulme: it was tip o'neill who said all politics are local.
i think one thing that would happen is as a state in the future sees elections happening that it does not like, you can change its manner of selecting the electors because the constitution is clear that the legislature gets to select a matter of choosing the electors. even if you have a national popular vote bill that does not say the state could derail the whole thing by opting out in the future because it is clear that the current legislature can change that. of andames hulme, author op-ed piece you can find in the philadelphia inquirer and on the washington post. john koza, director of the national popular vote movement. thank you for coming on and talking about this today. communicatorsthe -- >> if we had to strike two relations to do so -- we have a lot of regulations that can go. we would have a much more effective and efficient agency and more opportunity for
providers to serve consumers. >> michael o'rielly, fcc commissioner co talks about how the fcc may change at the administration to he's interviewed by david cal,. >> a lot of concern about cyber security. getting a particular amount of attention with what happened in last few months to the campaign. does the fcc have a role in that? >> i think it is an important issue. one that congress has been aggressive on in trying to find the right solutions. other agencies are doing so as well. the fcc's role is relatively limited by the statute that governs us. thee i do believe government has a role to monitor and potentially provide additional fixes in this space they are not authorized by the law for us to do. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8:0ea