every adult american tetanus yearrs a year -- $10,000 a for life. host: and stay houses, the electoral college will meet to cast a vote for president and vice president. c-span will take you to illinois, michigan and virginia to give you the chance to comment on today's vote. that cover to start at 11:00 this morning. go to c-span.org. as the electors meet, how many might cast a vote against president-elect donald trump. there were calls to eliminate the electoral college or make changes. in our first 45 minutes, we want to hear from you if it is time to make changes to the process

of the electoral college. here is how you can do it. if you support it, (202) 748-8000, if you uphold it, (202) 748-8001, if you suggest changes. you can also let us know on social media. if you want to post on twitter as you go post in our facebook page, too. off to find out about the process about what happens today, ben kasimar from "the hill" joins us. he is a staff member. if you would, quickly sketch out the process for today. guest: thank you for having me. to be electors across the country meeting and steakhouses throughout the day -- in steakhouses throughout the houses throughout the

day. we actually are telling our electors to go and vote on this day in order to vote for president. you will see meetings across the 50 states, mostly in state houses and that will ultimately be the votes cast most likely to make dump truck president. host: for the electors themselves, how many are going to vote for the winner of their state? guest: there is no constitutional provision that says you have to vote for new york state chooses. however, there are state laws in 29 states and district of columbia that trigger that provision making sure that people, the electors vote for the people who won their state. the punishments typically small fines. those are not seen as big

impediments. a larger impediment for people who are thinking about changing their vote is a they are directly going against the will of their state. and there could be political consequences. it could be how could you reconcile with that yourself. is are a lot of things to take into account. host: one of the things you write about in your piece is those who are pledged to vote for the president-elect and how many defects. what do we know at this point? guest: donald trump won the election abide 306 electoral votes and he meets to 70. in theory in order to have any chest of a successful, they -- anyny already seven chance of being successful, they would need 37 republicans. the most likely scenario outside

of trump the elected president is the 37 peel off a vote for someone else. that would bring the threshold of the leading candidate of and that wasout -- sent into the house. there's only one republican elector who said publicly that are willing to do so. a man out of texas. so far, it seems unlikely. that said, they called themselves hamiltonizers and they say the texas elector will not be alone on a monday. we will have to see how many do the crossover. host: if donald trump receives the majority of the votes, is it official then? it is not official because there are processes that turned out to be more complicated.

the house and senate will meet on i think january 6 to certify the results. that will be your last chance. if the electoral college moves forward with the donald trump, certifying his election which it are expected to do so, that is probably where the fire for -- fireworks will end. host: what is the general sense for people across the united states about the electoral college? are the majority in favor making changes? how does it stand? guest: it is funny because it is an ideological lines right now. you had for a while a slight favor in a gallup poll in other polls, majority of americans in favor of a national popular vote. hillary clinton won the popular vote this time. however, gallup polls did poland

after the election and it is interesting -- poland after the election that it is interesting to use the republicans into them 2012, 50 4% wanted to amend the constitution -- 54% wanted to lament. -- wanted to amend. gallup look and it dropped from democrats while the -- 19% while democrats have gone to 81%. it is fragmenting on ideological lines right now full's host: ben kasimar with "the hill." thank you for your time. you aboutchance for the future of the college and if you think it is time to make changes to it. (202) 748-8000. if you support of the electoral college, (202) 748-8001.

if there are changes needed to be made especially in light of the last election, let us know. you can also post on facebook. a will start with sam, supporter of the college. you are first up. caller: thank you for taking my call. the main issue of the electoral college, as i see it, a lot of a winner.accept if you go back to him election, let's say the popular vote was 500 votes different which could happen. if it happened right now, you would be counting or recounting. what happenedke in the one county in florida country.e entire

it would be a disaster. nobody would know or agree who the president is. as bad as the process is, it allows people to accept a winner was out turmoil for very much -- without turmoil. host: do you think the idea of winner takes all should be changed in any way? caller: absolutely not. the only thing that would happen differently is all of the states would not be important. the question that is happening, are the big city states, are they the most important? or is it surrounded number of states that become more important? some states will be the most important in terms of however it is decided. it is not perfect, it is certainly better than the alternative that would be suggested. host: let's hear from adam in maryland. he opposes the love touring -- changes -- the electoral college. caller: good morning.

it, andy, the way i see election should be based on the people who are voting. if donald trump gets 10 votes and hillary clinton gets 12, hillary clinton should be the winner. having said that, whatever is going on right now, it saddens me. it is clear that hillary clinton lost. whether we agree with it or not, it is irrelevant because she did lose. my personal opinion is the only reason we are having the , forrsation is if the dnc lack of a better term, got fished out, their emails got leaked and now, if we had not been caught, we would have won the election. is to note best thing doing the shady behind closed doors. let primary candidates plead their case in front of the people and let the people decide

and get rid of the electoral college. whoever was them majority -- whether west of majority should win. it should stop candidates for not campaigning in states not considered relevant today. for example, the state of california or my state of maryland, we're pretty much democratic states to the point where the candidates do not even go to the states to campaign. we got rid of the electoral college, the true representation of the people what come out. we can calculate the votes across the entire country and let the people decide who their future leader would it be. host: rollcall keeps a running track of the popular vote cast for both candidates. as of today or this morning, the u.s. total of 65,845,000 for hillary clinton.

when you look at the swing states involved, 21 million -- 21.4 million for hillary clinton. glenn from union washington. you are next on all polls are of the college. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am for the electoral college because it represented the entire nation. eight is not a mob rule concept. i philosophically begin -- believe the democrats think if they win the vote, any vote by 01%, it gives him the ring of power and they can be to down the rest of the nation. there is no way we can survive in a political environment where the major cities dominate the entire flyover of the country. we see this on the map where the major cities, major populations are and it does not make sense

to have somebody in a state have their vote trumped. you look at the hypocrisy of the democratic party. they are willing to say because hillary clinton won the majority are sort ofey disenfranchised. on the same frame, they are for disenfranchising half of the nation based on the vote. you look at the hypocrisy of hillary clinton, how she said, she called of deplorables, those who do not agree with her ideology. contrast that would donald trump who has said that he is for uniting the country. i agree with the caller from maryland that spelled out how the democrats lost and now they are sort of sour grapes. host: joe, good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to akamai support

-- echo my support. the numbers you quoted, another reflection, the popular vote, i feel like it makes campaigning in smaller states even less and major cities in particularly new york and california, it would become -- long as you won the popular vote, california, new york today, michigan, ohio, and florida, you do not have to pay any attention to the rest of the country. generally,al college generally sort of has already its balance toward the states anyway. it would be an enormous amount of power there. it would be a stranglehold. host: jodey says that the

electoral college has given the last elections to the republicans when data -- when they did not win. utah, you are on. caller: i studied american history in college. textbookn, based on my for the electoral college, was the founding fathers thought the rest of the nation, the rest of uninformedion was so how do i say it, government officials that they cannot be trusted to vote accurately. in other words, what they really

thought and so -- that was logical in 1781. wait a minute. let me think. the constitution was ratified in 1887 and george washington took office in 1791. we now have mass media. anyone can learn about anybody, anytime, especially with the help of c-span. and so, i think we do not need the electoral college now. win --pose was a good when it began but it is not needed now. host: gotcha. support the line. hi. caller: good morning. we need to remind ourselves about history and of the papers

that people are talking about. in its a history of the united states, it did not begin as the united dates. even after the revolution, we had a constitutional convention. at that convention, the 13 colonies did not want, not all of the wanted to join together. what happened? so the 13s were made colonies who do not want to join with the united states and the electoral college is one of those rings. one of the other, to senators would be representative and the house of representatives are put together was part of a cousin to general convention. constitutionala convention. the logic is we should get rid of the senators from the states not as populated as of the others. how crazy is that? does anybody notice how

incoherent this argument is? they are saying we needed the electoral college to prevent of the demagogue from getting the popular vote, but to the people who seem to be against the electoral college, at the same time, are saying the popular determine the election. host: that as tom in fort lauderdale, florida. is it time to change the electoral college? that's a question for you. if you support it, (202) 748-8001. the electors meet today. of thatan coverage starts at 11:00 this morning. we will take you to various places all across the united states to watch in the process play out. you can call in to do the by your experiences, your thoughts on this day for vote of president and vice president. it started 11:00. tonight at 8:00, you can see the

complete rap up on c-span and www.c-span.org and c-span radio app. taking you to illinois, virginia, michigan, and pennsylvania. go to our website for more election. if you go to "the wall street recent polls taken about the concerns about influence in the election, particularly from russia, the poll that set the majority of americans are concerned about the efforts of russian hackers. how much does it bother you that try to influence the election? 43% said a great deal. you think then if actions helped donald trump win the presidency? 57% said no. it was on the sunday's shows yesterday with the cia putting got reports of the influence of people green.er

john podesta of the hillary clinton campaign asked about the ofctors, especially in light the information about russia. here is his response. obamaodesta: the administration is doing what they think is the right thing which is their judgments and call. ,hen i said that 70 members bipartisan members have asked to to be briefed, it was written in the new york times, it is not that putin and trump work colluding but russians were trying to elect a lapdog. i would argue it is very much unknown whether there was collusion. they said they were talking to the trump campaign, roger stone in august foreshadowed the fact they had hacked emails and those would be forthcoming when he said he was in touch with wikileaks. carter page, one of all trump's

advisers went to russia before the convention and met with the the the russian hierarchy who was responsible for collecting intelligence. not woman -- and not what mr. trump did but when did they know? were they in touch with russia? those are open questions and the electors have a right to know. why i said it there needs to be an independent investigation. host: two people a great with mr. podesta. the committee, lindsey graham and john mccain, talking about the need for an investigation into this information about russia. rob in massachusetts, go ahead. caller: how are you? america really started one george washington became president, you cannot find a

bible anywhere in the city. he went to the nearest masonic lodge to get a bible. he was sworn in on the bible of the lodges. the robber rules of order is run by organizations all over the world. it, rotary elks use club. roberts rule of order needs to be taught to everyone. host: steve from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. i am for the electoral college because i am deeply concerned about the popular vote, depending on the web of our society after that time, we could have a dictatorship. way it it keep it the interject, why

did trump when the election? 81% of was in the evangelical christians voted not on either one of the 2 people because i do not care about them. we looked at the platform in which the democratic party had and the republican party had on family, abortion issue, dividing israel into 2 countries and a couple of other things. that pushed him over the edge. i am afraid. , that is whatr germany did a you had adolf hitler and that could happen here. on.: we are going to move we want to show you list of president that actually won without the popular vote taking

place. john quincy adams. he lost to andrew jackson. rutherford b. hayes lost to hamilton. it was benjamin harrison that lost the popular vote. these are popular vote counts. gore.orge w. bush to al michigan, good morning, tim. caller: good morning. after the primaries, they should flip a coin like the nfl to keep this corruption and stuff from interfering with our election. watertown,ck is in new york. go ahead. you are on. caller: i am calling from new york state where our votes count for nothing for the simple reason that new york state, new york city out votes all of us and we have no say is. more

counties went for trump in this last election then went for hillary. however, she walked away with those 4 boros in new york city taking the whole thing. we have no right see her. maine,in, they are -- in they allow for the electoral votes to be split. not in new york. if you have a system where the folks who vote in the cities, they will control this country. angeles, ins chicago will run the country and they will run it right into the ground. host: you would advocate for keeping the college? would you advocate for giving votes proportionally? -- caller: i was say new

york state, those of us who live in the northern part, i love as far away as newark city as richmond, virginia is from new york. we have no rights here. host: that is patrick. of thed, virginia, one places where focusing on the electoral college votes that take place with coverage starting at 11:00 this morning. in lansing, michigan, harrison, pennsylvania and springfield, illinois on the docket. you can sit on c-span and www.c-span.org and our radio app. tune in tonight at 8:00 for a look atd taking those efforts. it led vote today. you can see it as part of our road to the white house series. let's go to harold. harold in tarzana, california. good morning. caller: can you hear me?

of course. i happen to be a democrat and i differ with my fellow caller from upstate new york. i am from the valley, san fernando valley, los angeles, california. i look at the u.s. map very quickly and county by county. there were other counties in new york, more urban counties. california is no different. in 2004s a discussion that c-span aired that the national press call -- press club. i believe it was american or various news network that said had they divided the electoral college of the central valley, more republican parts of

california like this caller mentioned of upstate new york, there would be a bush-kerry, 19 electoral votes for bush. i amtter how you slice it, against the electoral college. i tell everybody to vote, even more than my ideological passions. when somebody is not a c-span viewer, shall we say, and they do not know the intricacies of constitutional law and government and i am not saying i am an expert or circuit court or anything like that, a loyal, you know, democrat and i will tell you this. who gets the most votes all to win. californiaues in where we have these democrats running against the democrats. and you know, there is no longer --rimary, it is becoming so

nebraska, it is a very long-standing and small start. congressional districts have been socongressional districts e been so gerrymandered why the state legislators that it must be a national thing. if he or she, republican, democrat, third-party presidential candidate, thank you. let me say. they will campaign in chicago and new york city in upstate and in the central valley, northern california and los angeles and san diego and was counted and the midwest because they want the votes nationally. host: gotcha. let's hear from kellyanne conway. she was an openof the nation" and talked -- she was on "face of the nation" and she was talk about russia's influence. kellyanne conway from face the nation of some -- face the nation. >> the nonsense of using the

russian election to change is unfortunate. it undermines our democracy more than any other conversation. we were strobe by what seems to andisagreement consternation between president obama camp at hillary clinton cap. you have josh earnest doing remarkable things from the podium. basically telling is what donald trump obviously knew when he would have no way of knowing that it is frankly, disrespectful. and president obama refusing to go all the way here and say russia has hacked into emails that what had interfered with election or shifted their results. president obama knows how to win and he did it twice and he did with states like michigan and winning states like wisconsin. , mr. trumpquestion is skeptical the russians were

whether it effected the election or not. you have the cia, fbi, a number of republican saying it is clear the russians have, that is a basic premise of that is clear. mr. trump since late september said he does not think it is the case. what does he know that all of those intelligence officers do not know? >> where is the evidence? why when cia officials were invited to a briefing last week, did they refuse to go? instead, they're talking to the media. it undermines. host: is it time to change in the electoral college? our question to you. joseph is in the bedford, virginia. you are next. caller: good morning, sir. yes, i know, it has been that way for the longest for a reason. and i support it.

i do not understand why there has to be such a sore losers. it is not this or that. everything that came out was the truth. that is the only way you're going to get somebody doesn't get the truth from somebody as corrupt as hillary clinton and her minions. there wasesident says no interfering with the actual voting machines or votes. so, there should be no problem and we are supposed to be the united states and all of this nonsense of people carrying on and behaving like that only benefits america's enemies and make our country and people look bad because they rejoice and celebrate. that is what do they want to tear us down. , i did notof people vote for current governor here,

but i believe he has been doing an absolute job. i would vote for him if he reruns even though he is a democrat and i am a republican. i go by how the person doesn't their job. host: that is joseph in virginia. the front page of the new york times talking about the topic of voter fraud. the story taking a look. tweaks this morning -- tweets this morning. and then this is jude who said -- doors in chicago, illinois. good morning. you are on. i am totally against the electoral college. people up here, i mean, they are

surprised to learn we are not a democracy. we are a democratic republic. that is a bad thing. we are the only first world country who is not a democracy and does not have one person, one vote to pick our president. i mean, why is it that? of course, i am a democrat. i do not consider trump illegitimate president. i just do not with all of the meddling from russia and comey and the fbi and the media who kept beating up on clinton. and, let's not forget the voter suppression by republicans. they do not want one person, one vote. they do not want every person to vote. so, yeah, the electoral college must really go. and the most underrepresented state is california.

they have 33 million people and they have the same amount of who has that wyoming like half a million people. is sad. host: donald trump center dot a tweet on the little college specifically about those who are going to vote for him saying -- -- sent out a tweet on the electoral college specifically about those who are going to vote for him saying -- good morning, you are next. caller: good morning, pedro. i am for the electoral college, there are 2 this is this about a week ago. somebody from the heritage foundation who did an investigation into virginia and found illegal's voted in 2012. they verified it. they were not citizens.

therefore they voted and they said it cannot happen. it was on your program. i do not know which one of you were sitting there. they turned it over to the attorney general and she did nothing and neither did the state of virginia who is run by democrats. you had a story on the recounts in michigan in detroit and there were more people who voted on who were not registered. those were for hillary clinton. she did not win by the margin. in california, you do not even have to show identification to vote. you just show up. how many illegals are in california? streaming5 million across the board's. those people went in and voted and disrupt the integrity of our system and that has to be investigated first before we can go on with this one person, one vote. if you are illegal and not supposed to be in this country,

you cannot vote. i would ask, why didn't the attorney general do something with our report? the got the names for where people are active. host: that is rate in pennsylvania. somebody who gave his own the role of electors. president obama did that. we will show you that in a bit. is it time to change the electoral college? (202) 748-8000 if you support it. (202) 748-8001, if you oppose it. president obama before leaving for his vacation in hawaii was asked about the role of electors and gave his thoughts. i am not going: to way into that issue. people --the american it is the american people's job to decide my successor. it is not my job to decide my successor. with have provided people

a lot of information. whatformation about happened during the course of the election. but more importantly, the candidates themselves, i think talked about their vision for america. the president-elect has been very explicit in what he cares about and what he believes in. not in my hands now. it is up to them. with respect to the electoral the electoral college is a vestige, a carryover from vision of how our federal government was going to work that put a lot a premium on states.

it used to be the senate was not elected directly. it was legislatures. -- type ofame time thinking that gives wyoming 2 senators with half a million people and californiapeople and3 million that death the same 2. host: appeal from california. you are on. caller: good morning. commentlike to make a that in the gentleman from pennsylvania and virginia made good points. them 100%.h the whole idea is this. if you are going to change something, let's change it not at this time. i think it was a democrat up.ing, obama ran the next day, everybody went to work. i did not vote for obama, but i went to work. i did not ride around the street

and make trouble for the entire country. if where going to change that, let's change it in a nice way so everybody can be nice and not creating these problems for everybody else. saying,ink, what i am donald trump, i guarantee he will be the breast -- he will be the best president. and i love him and he will make america great. god bless. from newert is next jersey. go ahead. caller: thank you for having me on. [indiscernible] press.n the media trying to subvert the system. they have been trying to

influence the electoral college so vote against trump. i am not for trump, but we've gotten ourselves into a situation. democrats,son the they want to subvert the system after them gotten themselves into trouble with messing with the primary. it is before and after trying to subvert our institutions of voting. this country is a mess. and we need to work ourselves out of this mess and stop messing with the system in a way that goes against, you know, the vote. democracy, they will be holding -- and usually i am the

guy on social media promoting this stuff. i refuse to do it. we need to go through the four years of trump and the democrats need to own up to not speaking to the people. host: richard from missouri. good morning. caller: good morning. on the proposition of taking the country that -- a back, we gave the country away. , those supporting trump today, i went to the man and woman enough that in six months willyear from now, they support him again. keep supporting him. trump will break amerco.

from --y common to us coming to us from st. louis, missouri. go ahead. i may have pushed the wrong button. roy, go ahead. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: you are on. caller: thank you. i am very concerned about this russian connection with the incoming administration. thei really think of electors should have been given, should be given. the thing is, most of them were not accepted in a way because it like a lot of the callers, nobody is concerned about possibly having what you call manchurian candidate. a person who is supposed to be one thing but maybe something else. i am very upset about that. and the republicans horse subtly helen tro -- subtly helling t --

hailing trump like he is a god, they should look at the history and see what is going on. if you heard what mr. podesta -- he ismade supporting facts that were supported does reported in the media for -- reported in the media. affect our topic about the electoral college, our changes needed? caller: it would work is it would come function as it is conceived. parties thatto the they will not listen to the other side and they will go ahead and vote for trump anyway. host: you are sending letters of the early days did not vote for the party but picking the rest person and party loyalty is what you are seeing today? caller: yes.

thatgo back to the history got rutherford b. hayes elected. it was just, it was a secret deal behind secret doors, closed tildenhere even though won the popular vote, he gave that the southo could still count for something. it was a secret deal. what we have is is electors should be told that the trump administration, incoming, and their campaign was connected to the russian outfit, putin and his friends. and a lot of nefarious things went on as they need to be investigated. host: let's hear one more call. mel, new york, you are on.

caller: the electoral college is not a super bowl. winner takes all. the electoral college is a world series. in it that world series, there are a series of contests that must be one of them. even though the new york yankees back in the 1960's scored more runs than the pirates, the pirates won the world series. it is, with the electoral college, and i think it is there taking our nation a republic, not a democracy. i do not want a democracy. democracy's attorney to mobocrac ies. and this is the best way to ensure our freedoms and to nation. our rights as a and i feel like the public education, this government run education, is really interfere with that and indoctrinating

kids to think that we live in a democracy when truly, we ought to understand we are republic. the electoral college is consistent with that. we democratize and things too much already. we have the senators it being elected by the popular vote within the state. it was not met originally to do that. be the lastll caller on this point. we're going to continue on about the electoral college, how it stands today, if changes are needed. ts joining us. we will be joined by james hulme the popular vote to do just that and john koza. later on, we will look at the books on different topics. join the cause is charles murray on his effort to replace social safety net with basic income for

all americans. "washington journal" continues after this. ♪ announcer: this week, today, states counted or electors votes. inwill have live coverage michigan and virginia starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern and will re-air at 8:00 p.m. eastern. tuesday, jerry greenfield, cofounder of ben & jerry's talks about responsible business tactics. >> the idea that we cannot sell enough ice cream in the summer in vermont that forced us to look for other markets. announcer: wednesday night, dick panetta on theg future of defense department

under president-elect donald trump. >> i think the challenges are very great and we unfortunately over the course of the last many years done serious damage to our capabilities to bed to me to those threats. >> living in that he no were a lot of flashpoints. the new administration will have to look at that kind of world and obviously the fine policies -- define policies to deal with that. and development the defense policies to confront that kind of world. announcer: thursday, and look at -- career of mike pence stop mike pence. ?? we have still without apology for the sanctity of life, the importance of marriage and the freedom of religion. ,nnouncer: on friday night farewell speeches and tributes to several senators including harry reid, barbara boxer, kelly ayotte and dan coats.

this week in primetime on c-span. ♪ announcer: the presidential inauguration is friday, chamberlain 20 and a. c-span will have live coverage stop -- january 20. watch a live on c-span as c-span.org and listen on the free c-span radio app will stop -- radio app. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service america's cable television companies and brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> washington journal continues.

host: we will continue our discussion on the electoral college with two guests. james hulme a local attorney and author of an op-ed looking at the ecology and john koza of the national popular vote movement, the founder of that 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 is wrote today? -- its role today? guest: the final did fathers intended it for to be aristocratic people of wealth and theunity stature notion was they were going to deliberate in a small groups around the country and selected the best candidate for president. that lasted for exactly eight years until washington left. as soon as there was a conflict between competing candidates in

1796 between adams and jefferson , we got to the current system, which is a that the candidates were nominated by the congressional caucus on a national level in the presidential election the camel -- became a rubberstamp to vote for the candidate that belongs to the party. host: you are saying as far as intention, what about today? is it necessary to have that kind of current set up or set of originally introduced? guest: its purpose is totally changed. it is a method for counting votes. most states have the winner take all the rule which awards all of the state's electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most popular vote and fight of the state. guest: it is interesting that originally the intention was not necessarily was the popular vote in 1792, which was the second presidential election.

only 2 state held a popular vote. there were 15 states. that can for a number of years. watershed because of the election that year was decided by the house because the electoral votes deadlocked. after that, an amendment to define the system. inclination toal get rid of the electoral college. it was refined so we have what is our current system and really a party system is what developed and substantially changed it. the issues we will be talking about are the same was in 1787 when the constitution was debated and created and that is a big state versus small state and some of the issues that are still there that affect people's thinking. host: you both heard about the calls for changes or at least in

light of the last election. op-edlme you wrote an even as it was back then, it is a necessary part of presidential candidates. sleep is the case. aret: the candidates campaigning for an votes and not campaign 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 does protect smaller states from larger states which is the main thing that drove it. you take the current election at the present time and we are still counting votes, which is one of the problems with popular votes. hillary clinton's margin is

about 3 million votes. she carried california by 4 million votes itself. was fivethe margin hundred thousand. al gore carried new york and california by more than that. , the unitedsking states and go to a voter, are you willing to have california decide who is voter? and you get a different answer if you want the president-elect by popular vote. that's what electoral college serves to protect. a candidate cannot just focus on high population areas. host: mr. koza you are part of a ,ovement, 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? guest: national popular vote is 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 state having 270 electoral votes, the majority, would adopt the same law. host: how many states have signed up? guest: 11. we are seeking additional state hoping to get 105 more. host: why is that a better way? guest: the constitution has a note in mechanism for reform that gave the states of the exclusive power to determine the method of awarding their said.ral votes as he just his states have used different methods. some of the states have at the governor involved in picking the electors. some of the states, the legislatures pick 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. in defense of the electoral college. both of these gentlemen to talk about the college. if you what to ask a question, called the lines, (202) 748-8001 for republicans and (202) 748-8000 for democrats and (202) 748-8002 for independents. how do you feel about this? keeping the college in tech as a whole? done: i think it is being to remove the electoral college, you would have to have 38 states agree.

most people can see it is highly unlikely. it is a workaround. there are numerous problems with it, practical and i will call a political. practical, we are still counting votes. in a close election like 2000, and the differences of 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 then i -- i do not think it is workable. i think it would be do stop lazing -- destabilizing. you have to get an absolute majority for say you tend to get two candidates. was a direct popular vote, you could out 12 candidates -- with a direct popular vote, you could have 12 candidates.

i think it would be very destabilizing and we do not really really see all of the problems it would have. not only regional diversity is that we are the united states of america and not a 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. 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 gives room -- it keeps the all thet from having say in the rest of the college having no say. 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 on your population. as for as in the russians, this is the biggest liberal left a week -- a left wing going. idiots america's who cannot comprehend the progressives are doing all they can to steal this election toward the clinton camp. host: thank you. if you want to take the first part about the check the balances part. guest: the only thing the electoral college checks and balances is the voters of the united states. states. as presidential candidate scott walker said last year, 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 wisconsin, ohio, and florida that happened to be battleground states where the places where onlyspeed rail makes sense has 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. one thing i would like to point out is that 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 miss my -- ms. may. there was no direct vote at all. not elect their leader by direct popular vote. they use a system similar to 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. guest: i think the structure of the electoral college is the fact that we are a low electoral -- federal system. 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 re: seen what we have called the imperial presidency in past elections. there is a fear that this will upset the checks and balances and make it president far too popular. i guess you are arguing that under the current system that the president is, because they do not have a direct mandate. that is not valid. fewentioned relatively 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 campaigns that ignore three out

of four americans, three out of four states, and why five out of our 45 presidents came into won theithout having most votes nationwide. side, josh.at 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 about. 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. 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. that it are some like is maybe 200,000. unconstitutional. it means our boat does not count at all. host: what do you think about that argument about slavery? guest: the two major reasons we have this electro 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

to get ain 1789 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 propertyion, very high of patients that were in place at the time, and slavery. host: same question. guest: we address this in the article. we think slavery 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. that came later in the process of the constitutional debate once it was realized neither popular vote nor election by congress was 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. voters were male property owners in the country. in 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. wanted to gotes with five hits and the non-slave states want to go with zero. so it decreased the southern participation if you have been able to count slaves as nonvoting women and children. are talking about a

piece on defending the electoral college. john koza, founder of the national popular vote. steve, go line, ahead. caller: thank you. good morning. it is great to have somebody on with a wealth of knowledge on this. yourre spot on on all of comments, and i appreciate that. is, i going comment state-by-state and trying to get the states involved, that is an nd around where trying to get a popular vote where states like new york and california will control everything for the united states. is that your end goal to get where to populous areas can

control what happens in this country for you and the liberal party because that is where it is going in my opinion? have a happy holiday season. of misshere are a lot impressions about the way the country is divided. presidentialrecent election, wyoming, west virginia, and the district of columbia are the only three places that were more than 62% in favor of the candidates. california and new york are not controlling anything. they represent less than 18% of the population of the country. california this year was 62% democratic, in new york was 59%. the notion that the states are already or all blue is a total distortion of the public. the fact is that except for the three places i mentioned there

is no state in the united states to fivemore than three ratio of one party to another. there is no reason that the minority in each state should have their vote 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 importantly in every single presidential election leaves three out of four americans utterly irrelevant in the process of choosing the president and in his mind when he governs because after you are thinking of reelection or the thetion of your assessor same battleground states and transactional politics that distort american politics in favor of this handful of battle ground states really has to be changed. guest: if you look at the current map, and i'm not endorsing donald trump or

hillary clinton. if you look at the county map of how they voted, the country is a sea of red. the blue areas are just very small. they are isolated basically to the coasts and a couple of urban areas. whether it iss good for the country and political stability going forward whether you are going to have a president-elect that wins most of the country in terms of the geography of where people .ive and interact with the electoral college has done in this case is to take iat and say for stability think donald trump should be president because he was the one that most of the country wanted in terms of geography where people are living and working. that is why i think having the states participate is important. guest: 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 allusion as i just said. except for thete three small places i mentioned one partyre than 63% or the other. there are plenty of democrats in texas. there are a huge number of republicans in california. this country has become very much divided because of this bluen of red states and states. the fact is that in every state there is a substantial minority and thoseer party voters should have their votes directly counted instead of pretending that their votes to the candidate that a majority of their neighbors support. that is the tyranny of the majority that ought to be eliminated. that is why i focused on the county maps that breaks it down to a local area that shows that red areas predominate the

country. it is easy to have a slogan like and counties don't vote. the political structure is much more complex than that. we have a stable three-legged stool. taking away the electoral college would cut out one of those legs. when you take away one of those legs, the school collapses. what exactly will happen if you get rid of the electoral college, but i predict it would not be good. 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. fair whenu say it is 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.

guest: democracy, our structure was designed to prevent what is called the tierney 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 elect world college diverging 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 guest:. i don't think 3 million votes is exactly a close election. the tyranny of the majority is a completely inappropriate term to be using here.

the tierney of the majority is the tierney of the winner take all rule which causes the votes of three out of five people and to the state being credited to 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. this is from houston, texas. independent line. caller: i support the electoral college as long as they do their job. otherwise what is the point? the 12th amendment says has over 270one

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 compromise candidate. what you think this idea about electors not voting for the candidate their state requires them to? this is one of the important figures of the last few decades in terms of enhancing civic engagement in the united states. when the voter goes into the voting booth in all 50 states today, they vote for donald trump or hillary clinton or , not foramed candidate the individual presidential electors who are generally unknown to the public.

the electors should honor the will of the people under whatever law is in effect in a given year, and i think the electors should vote the way the public expected them to vote. about half the states intend to require the electors voters the way the choose. it would probably be very disruptive to have these faithless electors take over here. that is not what the expectation is. you can imagine the trumpet ministration has been working on a transition for about four weeks. it was kicked over to the house, i think the outcome would probably be the same. the house does not vote member by member. they vote by state. each state gets one vote. the district of columbia will be cut out of it.

the state delegations would have to select which candidates a support. to choose among the top three. it would be donald trump, hillary clinton, and anybody else that got an electoral votes. we have heard a lot about the intent of alexander hamilton and the electors. are they meant to be a last line of defense? doubt that the original intention was that the electors would be a 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 developed. guest: i agree with what james just said.

next from is 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. 2010, 2012, and 2014 the people voted for change. the republican party took over. 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 start being -- stop being nihilistic, people will keep asking for this change. thank you. host: which of you would like to start? guest: god bless the color. 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. probability that you will have a president who is -- by a small plurality of the country. that is not a good thing. guest: james is way off. if we were having this discussion in 1789 when only four states elected their chief executive, their governor you can perhaps 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. 40%only 1% was less than and no candidate for governor on with less than 35% of the vote. there are only -- no 9% u.s. senators or congressmen, there are not even any 30% u.s. congressman or senator's. 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 and the united states, the candidate with the most votes wins, in country after country has been observed to sustain the two-party system and elections were candidates get either 50% or slightly less than the case. you just heard from john koza, cofounder of the national popular vote. in 1973 and 1974, i invented the instant lottery ticket with my late partner dan bauer. we sold it to state after state.

host: john's young, an attorney in town. gettysburg college, one scholars.ding lincoln i was watching the bill marsh out after the election and saw the attorney general on their talking about advocating abolition of it, and we came up with this op-ed piece. trenton, florida, democrats line. charlie, you're next. interestings an 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 participationing 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? guest: it is an interesting question. whoad one caller indicated they were not voting. the turnout in the president shall election -- president election is the highest that we have. people should not take that view. the vote can be very close in many states. it is really something that would not suppress the turnout. you would have the same thing with the popular vote. people would say it is a foregone conclusion because california will control the

outcome. that turnout is 11% higher in 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 talk 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 majority -- minority in california. host: this is larry. caller: i would like to state was the united states formed to form a union. in the union all people should be considered equally. i originally thought every station get one vote and the district of columbia should get one vote. after listening to the show, i felt it would be better that it would be better if every state got three votes that way they could be proportional. you have to win at least a third of the vote in order to get

votes in each state. go back to al gore. everyone says it was too close in florida. my answer to that is if al gore had won his home state where people know him best, he would have been president. win 25if you cannot states plus the district of columbia, you should not be present. guest: that is an interesting theory. that would be taking the structure of the u.s. side and transporting it to have 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.

doug.let's go to ohio, democrats line. caller: i really don't have an opinion either way. out out thatto point donald trump did win way more counties, but president-elect on 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 in less than one third comes from the 2300 counties that donald trump won. you can just throw that into your discussion. well 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 weather 46 largest counties, -- 146 largest counties, that compose the majority of the people in the country are only 59% democratic. this is an evenly divided country. we have had a series of close elections, eight in a row since 1988. is aotal votes since 1928 hundred 27 million republicans and 827 million for democrats. every persons vote should matter. every vote should be equal. we should stop running presidential elections where three out of four americans are left out of the process because the campaign takes place in a

handful of states. guest: i think the fear of the direct popular vote is that campaigning will take place on both coasts and the middle part of the country will be ignored. while there is not active campaigning in every state, it is distributed across the country. it is highly likely the campaigning will only happen in california and new york and maybe chicago. the states that have endorsed the proposed bill are 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. guest: it is the middle of the states thatuse the have passed the bill so far are spectator states that are utterly irrelevant. the countrypart of

are three out of four americans and three out of four states that are irrelevant in selecting the president. host: 11 states have signed on. what other states are considering? guest: it has to the arizona house this year -- half the arizona house -- it has passed the arizona house this year. a few months ago it was passed in the republican-controlled new york senate. 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 win. there is a lot of data and how they campaign in states like ohio. they don't go to the big cities in ohio. those represent 52% of the ohio and the get 51% of the campaign visits. areasl areas -- the rural

and22% of the population they get 24% of the campaign stops. you campaign throughout the whole jurisdiction. it is absolute nonsense for a presidential candidate in a popular vote to campaign in new york and california representing 18% of the country and ignoring 82% of the voters. the only time that happens is under the current system where three out of four americans are irrelevant. guest: i disagree. campaigns have to be efficient. you are not going to campaign where your relative population is widely distributed. it is inefficient. the campaigns will go where the votes are as they do now. they go where the electoral votes are. the electoral vote is designed to reflect a combination of the state and people coming together.

elizabeth from michigan. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think mr. koza has done an excellent job in defending our popular vote and do not have much to add to the conversation other than if you would ask yourself this question about today's procedure with the electoral college. accrued almostp 3 million more votes than theary clinton and had 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 , weered more actual votes would not be holding this procedure today. thisi tell us how honest

-- that might tell us how honest this election has been. guest: electoral college by law in the constitution has to meet today. the electors are meeting in each state. no matter how the popular vote is, electors have to cast their votes today and submitted to congress that opens in early january. that is not going to change. host: do either of you see in the near future a drastic change in the electoral college and how we do things? guest: we hope that the national popular vote will replace the state winner take all laws. we are not trying to abolish the electronic 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. guest: all politics are local. one thing that happens is a state in the future these 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 a single statell could derail the whole thing by opting out in the future because it is clear that the current legislature can change that. host: the op-ed piece you can find in the philadelphia inquirer and on the washington post. thank you for coming on and talking about this today. guest: thank you. guest: it has been a real pleasure. host: we will talk with charles murray of the american enterprise institute. he will talk about a universal

basic income for every american. that discussion is next on "washington journal." ♪ >> this week on c-span, states electorsir votes for for the president of the united states. we will be live in michigan and pennsylvania at 11:00 a.m. eastern and will re-air coverage at 8:00 p.m. eastern. jerry greenfield talks about creative and responsible business practices. >> the idea that we could not sell enough ice cream in the colder months forced us to look at other business. dick cheney and leon panetta

on the future of the defense department under donald trump. >> i think the challenges are great area i think unfortunately under the last many years we have done serious damage to our capabilities. >> we are living in that time where there is a lot of flashpoints. the new administration is going to have to look at that kind of --ld and the fine policy define policy that we need to deal with that and develop a defense policy to deal with that world. >> a look at the career of mike pence. ofamidst the shifting sands contemporary culture and lot we have stood without apology for the sanctity of life and freedom of religion. >> on friday night beginning at 8:00, farewell speeches to several outgoing senators

including harry reid, barbara boxer, and kelly ayotte. this week in primetime on c-span. ♪ >> the presidential and operation of donald trump is friday, january 20 c-span will have live coverage of the days events and ceremonies. andh live on c-span c-span.org and listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: charles murray is a scholar at the american enterprise to, also the author of this book, "in our hands: a plan to replace the welfare state." welcome. guest: thank you. host: could you give your

assessment of the current welfare program or social safety net program as far as it is operating? guest: it is crazy. $2 trillion a year we spent in transfers. we still have 13% poverty depending on what year you are talking about. we have millions of elderly without the means to live with decent assistance. it is crazy you can spend that much money and still have poverty be a serious problem. moneyis the problem the transfer itself or the roles attached? guest: it is a combination of things. it is not so much that we are paying thousands of bureaucrats. it is given out in bits and pieces. a lot of it is in kind. a lot of it gets lost in the pipeline. now is a kind of

that wek of assistance try to target to individual needs. we do not do a good job of that. if we just gave people cash resources to make their own decisions about how to deal with give needs, i think you away for us to get rid of what i call involuntary poverty. under guaranteed income, will we still have people who waste their money? yeah. are we providing a way in which they have a clear path to a decent existence? yes. universal basic income, could you describe how you came across this philosophy? guest: excuse me. i can do it because i have been a long time writer about welfare and the social welfare system. i looked back in 1980 at the idea of let's just give people

money. when i did the numbers, we could not afford it. it was much more expensive than the existing system. 2004 or 2005, i looked at it. we will be able to afford this about 2011, which turned out to be true. proposingsystem i am is a couple hundred million dollars cheaper than the system we have now. i have been looking at it as an ideal for a long time. it is finally becoming realistic. citizen woulds. receive about $13,000 a year annually. you can earn income on top of that you are getting a guaranteed income. you could earn about 30,000 before losing anything. that is funded by the total elimination of welfare systems. guest: corporate welfare and

agricultural subsidies, anything that is a transfer some american taxpayers to other individual americans. host: how did you get to the $13,000 figure? guest: combination of things. one is affordable. i was asking myself, many just put in the caveat. of that $13,000, $3000 has to be devoted to medicare -- medical care insurance from the age of 21. theuld like to focus on $10,000 of disposable income. if you asked how i can to $10,000 of disposable income, i don't want a basic income that allows someone to go serve on a beach for the rest of their life. i want an amount of money that is enough to put together a decent living if you cooperate with someone else.

whether that is a spouse, friends,a friend, to $30,000. or it is a comfortable income if you have a low-paying job. if you are making $12,000 a year at a really low-paying job, that is $22,000. you can have a very different life. married, $22,000 for you, $10,000 for your spouse, that is $32,000. the persisting theme is that it is easing for people to put together a life. $10,000 works for that. will talk more with our guests. if you want to ask him about his proposal, charles murray. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents.

(202) 748-8003 welfare recipients. welfare -- $10,000 does not seem like a lot. guest: the current poverty line for one person living alone is $11,000 and something. that is really low. when you talk about rent, and we are in washington, d.c. you cannot do a thing with that. if you're talking about a small town in iowa, the whole question of rent is different. try living on your own without working on euro. you better find someone to cooperate with and join forces with or work at a low-paying job. if you do either of those two things, than we are not talking about $10,000 anymore. host: the figure changes

depending -- if you are making $12,000 a year at a job, that is $22,000. host: if you follow us on twitter, you can make your thoughts known on twitter. fromirst call is built pittsburgh. go ahead. caller: good morning. i apologize. i had hoped to hear more about your plan before i was called. obviously, this does not work, your idea would not work if social security was not bundled into it. social security as acontributory plan

isdatory retirement savings one of the best ideas that we have ever had, the idea that producer income you , andown retirement savings what you get in return is proportional to what you have put aside. most people -- a lot of people aren't able to do that because whatever, too many expenses. everyone has to do it, and the economy adjusts. securitym with social

is it has to be adjusted so contributions pay the benefit. that is being discussed now. i simply cannot support your relating your later income to your own contributions from your income over your lifetime. guest: it is an interesting question. get into the reasons why i think you can get rid of social security and not only that, it will be better for the elderly. social security is not universal. there are a lot of elderly people that are desperately poor that have no income from social security. if you have a couple that are of retirement age, they're getting $20,000 a year. a lot of people receiving social security, that works just fine.

i paid in the absolute full security allocial of my life, and i get about $33,000 a year. that is for someone that paid in all that much. what it would have taken for someone to pay into this payroll plan to switch to something like i am proposing? if you offer people the choice of the $10,000 a of the $10,000 a year of discretionary income and social security, and said you could go into either system, you are smarter if you go into the guaranteed basic income any time until the mid-1940's. even people and their late 40's and early 50's might choose to socialto this because security is not very good deal in terms of the return you get.

this plan that gets rid of social security does not leave you destitute at the age of 65. the same roads of putting together a decent existence, and unlike the current social security system everybody is getting this money at 65. st. petersburg, florida, welfare recipient. caller: i was listening to this. i am on my social security disability because i am disabled. before that i was receiving ssi. the gentleman thinks anyone can $10,000 around $20,000 a year. i have been struggling. i have been struggling desperately for 10 years now, and it is not possible.

it takes -- i have about just over $25 every month out of my check that does not go to my rent. that is it. you have to ask what constitutes the living income. if you want everybody above the poverty line, and you're talking not just one person but to people, you are around $20,000 range depending on the specifics of your situation. i'm essentially saying we will guarantee an income at that point that puts you at the poverty line. all,u supplement that at all that you get to keep. i guess the question i would ask about people who are on welfare coupleow to think about of problems you face. qualify fored to

the package of welfare benefits that is available in your state and locality, and you are of working age and would like to go to work and hear of places where there are jobs, you cannot pick up and go where the jobs are because to do that requires you to forfeit the benefits you managed to qualify for. if the job does not work out, it is too risky. the plan i am offering gives you anyt more cash than almost men get and a lot of women get. it frees you up. it enables you to change your life for the better in ways that the current system prevents you from doing. host: california, independent line. mark, go ahead. caller: good morning to both of you. thank you to c-span very much.

i am a disabled vietnam veteran. i have no kids. married, and divorced now. . have not been able to work about $1100 a month from the v.a. war, not hurt during the but i became disabled after that . . have a hard time making it eureka, california, is a place that is not in the big city where you have to pay a lot of rent. for everybody, any age,

or once you receive 65? thank you so much to c-span. guest: the basic ground rules are that the universal basic income begins at age 21 for all american citizens. it continues until death. that is the ground role. i guess with regard to your situation, i should specify that the benefits you are getting as a vietnam veteran i think that in the same way as pension benefits or other earned benefits that would not be .ubject to the plan i have government pensions, whether they are for veterans or civilian employees, that is a separate thing as our pensions in the private sector as well.

i guess that the disability that you now get would be replaced by this plan. you would be getting the $10,000 plus your benefits is a veteran. host: if everyone gets it at 21, does it matter than of income bracket? how do you square that? guest: no. this will be a hard thing to get through. thinking about asking people to give up social security, you have to provide them with some incentive. what i am saying to someone who is an upper income person or expects to become one, you end up after paying back part of the grant around $30,000. let me back up and make it clear. you keep everything you make up until $30,000 of earned income, so you're at $40,000.

from $30,000 to $60,000, there is a slow clawback. to $60,000 you get of earned income, you are at a net of $6,500. that is your compensation of giving up social security. 21,ou say to someone at would you like to go to social security that we have now or would you like to have $6,500 a year that you can do what you wish with? that you takeiner $2500 of that and put it in an index fund for 40 years, you will do way better than the social security system. host: you mentioned social security.

the first flaw is the inclusion of medicare and social security. medicare spends more than , and thisr recipient only pace half. guest: i will go back and look at the numbers i present in the book comparing the alternatives. if you take.500 dollars year are payingand if you the maximum amount, i cannot tell you off the top of my head what social security payments are, it is way more than $2500. even if the stock market grows when he percent -- 4% average over 40 years, you will end up with a retirement payment if you put it into an annuity which is

a multiple of your current social security payment. when we talk about how much money is spent per person on security,nd social you cannot think of it in terms of here is the money you get after 65. you have to think of what could happen if you started with money being paid in at age 21. how can i put this briefly because i don't want to get too deep into the numbers here? why is it that life insurance of these will sell you life insurance really cheaply even you wille odds that eventually die are 100%? the answer is because of you start shooting when you're 21 when you are unlikely to die, they can make money off of all that until you reach 65 or 70 and do die. the same thing happens with

money that is coming in from h 21 on. -- age 21 on. it can accumulate the kinds of returns that will make it a much preferable choice. is a welfare recipient from new york. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for all the c-span workers behind the scenes that get everyone on. remarks make to brief and then my comments, one i live with disabilities. dog were service convicted last week by a judge in new york when we called the cops to get on a bus and the bus .river refused you're talking to a criminal, and now the state is going to have to pay because i'm not going to pay any fine. the other thing i want to bring up is that the universal

declaration of human rights, which the former first lady of ,ew york and the united states eleanor roosevelt, champion has article 25. i would like to make my comments after this. to aone has the right standard of living adequate to the health and well-being of oneself and one's family, food, clothing, housing, and medical ,are and the right to security unemployment, disability, widower, widowhood, and the lack of -- host: i would love you to make your point if you can. you are still on. caller: the number one myth in america is that we don't have money because of social security being stopped at 118. host: we will have to leave it

there. i guess i don't hear a question there. host: we will move on. bellingham, washington. go on. caller: hello. i have a question. my question is what happens you have to deal with the social problems. mean, there is functional problems. if you're in such desperate aed, you are willing to go to welfare office to deal with the problems and the paperwork to pittance of money, then you need help. that's what we're there for.

that's why we go out special and get problems. we're a service to help people. we have the programs to do it. them.ve to talk to host: apology for that, caller, sorry. guest: i'm glad this caller has talk about hance to he most important outcome of guaranteed income. it offers way to resuscitate this country.in the other thing is to give eople a moral agency that the current system has taken away. let me give you a couple of how illustrations that might work. if you -- let's say, are getting $833 deposited electronically to account, that is how the system would work. you do stupid things during the of the month, drink it up, gamble it away, you have 10

next deposit e hits, what do you do? you can't go to the welfare agency. it doesn't exist anymore. ou'll have to go to -- if you are a guy, go to a girlfriend, o you your parent's, to your friend's, the salvation army, you have to go somewhere there s a big difference with the universal basic income over the current situation. you can present yourself as what i do, you know, i don't have any money, i don't have resources. under the universal basic you, e, people can say to as they cannot now, we're not the to let you starve on street, america has never let people starve on the streets, it your act u get together. don't tell us you are helpful and can't do anything. $833 hit u will have your bank account in 10 days, it serious about

this. imagine that kind of onversation going on millions of time a day, as people once again living in the same the same od, living family, people who are interacting with each other dealing with the problems of the people who they now and with all due respect, sir, as former welfare worker, i your good will, intentions, skill, i'm saying the worst possible way for need system human through a bureaucratic system. be aucratic systems have to run according to certain guidelines and rules, you can't reak, it's part of being a government program and bureaucracy. human needs are not like that. some people need a pat on the back and a lot of support. kick in the eed a pants and people who are most likely to know what is going to effective strategy are

people closest to. t is this kind of benefit of universal basic income, giving which i ral agency, benefit.most profound host: viewer asks, no problem job.l program than dust off work boots and go get a job. is the is one thing that great advantage of universal basic income. andou are low level, say in out of jobs, and you have for welfare, it better the books. many cases, will lose welfare benefits. problem withe that universal basic income. every dime you make up until $30,000, you get to keep. incentive.nk is labor ple not in the force, getting a job would pay

get inrtial tax rate and the labor force they don't have now. welfare usta, georgia, recipient. mark, thank you for waiting, you are on now. thanks, pedromrchlt murray, can you hear me? any chance?teran by caller: i am not. joined marine corps at 18, after the vietnam war. eft springfield, illinois, we had a huge caterpillar industry, there.s no longer friday age 18 to age 30, came home and that is now a business plan, so there are no jobs there. i guess what we've watched and you're old enough to know better, we've watched jobs leave americans are left with needing help and i fellow americans or my fellow veterans or nonveterans for that. that is where the hedge fund

money went, made money overseas. you, mr. murray, anything with friday age 18 to , came home and that is now attac enterprise institute says privatization and means less , which for the people and more for -- even you yourself would probably off by your owners, your bankers. nothing personal against you, azation, anything public is handed over to private nterprise works good for a couple weeks and then the wheel come off. i'm bright enough to know having served in marine corps, i saw argentina e i left what happened with chile with privatization of social security, you know that story, inside and out better than i would. peasants is, the poor that trump wants to build a wall for were bright enough to figure privatization of social security failed in the world space, but that story is not told. okay, let our guest

respond, caller. thanks. you : i was smiling when talked about aei, by the way, i civility with which you made your point, i aei website to the and you will find people talking problems to deal with of poverty that i think you will find very surprising. ways, my colleagues at aei, who don't agree about income and one nice thing about aei, we can disagree if we don't have a party line. much more ambitious plans in terms of trying to deal poverty problem than i have. so i was smiling because if place in the a rich that is i think source of ambitious new ideas to eal with poverty, it is american enterprise institute for whom some of the large indeed hedge fund

people and hedge fund people who care deeply about the problems facing. host: charles murray, our guest, author of "in our hands," scholar at american enterprise institute. "losing ground," and co-authored 1994.bell curve," in "the bell curve," what did it who don't for those know? guest: it caused a fire storm. intelligence, h right? reshaping e of iq in social structure of the united states. structure was we had going on, you had cognitive elite out of touch country, est of the and i guess, pedro, look at what since the 22 years book was written and as predictions go, that wasn't bad. host: such as? an example. it dealt with race, what did it

say about race? finish, ust let the subtitle, intelligence and class structure in american life, that topic.e what we have seen in twebt 2016 cognitive elite in place and mainstream america deeply them.ted from when you said race, a chapter in the book talked about ethnic and racial differences in cognitive chapter es and that presented the facts about what the test scores are, that is not matter of opinion. it also presented, you know, why o we have these and it presented the case for a variety and in the ons course of that, dick hernstein made a fatal mistake in terms of the reaction to it. if we have either convinced you that either the environmental or genetic reasons for these test scores explains

out to theand is won exclusion of the other, we have not done a good enough job of side or the e other. hat was enough to lead people to say that hernstein and murray for genetic inferiority of racial minorities. the way, is the sum total of anything in the book genes.ing very strange situation. host: in 20 years, have you rethought positions, clarified positions, particularly when it came to the race issue? had a task they american -- of the psychological association that curve that the bell put out a statement, an official american of the psychological association about we issues in the bell curve discussed, including race. american ke the

psychological association tax force statements about what we know about ethnic test scores differences in them and put it up against what we said in he bell curve and the differences are miniscule. essentially, no, i haven't rethought that because dick and i did not push the envelope in erms of what we were saying is the stated knowledge. ost: our guest's current work, replace the welfare state, enterprise merican group. charles, go ahead. caller: mr. murray, pedro, thank for letting me speak. i have a couple of points i'd like to make. last book, i ur think "coming -- guest: yeah. book.r: i enjoyed that i would just, one point, i've with ly been involved college selection process and of course in my life, i've lived in

areas and very affluent areas. i continuing is interesting, admission process, it's very interesting to me. self-select nothing one way of thought, people are saying on college is really one dominant thought and i think the people who make the selections, to see you explore that at some point. the second point, observation is last eight years, it as become so common place for young women to accept the fact that they are going to have children without their fathers it is across the board, increased, i continuing has gone african american community as 73% of all babies that are born do not have a dad. seems like that puts people behind the eight-ball. welfare uestion on the state. but when we have medical and government these programs designed, support going you have people

headlong making decisions in the correct how do you ever that? guest: well, i guess that is one of the things i really like idea of the universal basic income. specific on the question of the young woman who has a child and the man does not it.e care of well, i'll tell you one thing, drastically with the universal basic income and test forease of d.n.a. established paternity. right now, when you have a man a child and walks away from the child, it is really hard to collect child support. they just too easily disappear, any money.t have in the case of the universal basic income, all the woman has go before a judge and stablish paternity, which is real easy to do and guess what, the judge can issue an order,

a certain amount of child support from that man's his basic income, that will pay for child support, thing in really good terms of the welfare of the child being helped. you a more important thing, other guys will be theirs as friends of who father babies find their money, a lot of money in the is being taken away. you think that won't have an men who think about the financial consequences of having a child? goes for women. so, you are going to have young 18-19 looking at their older sisters, looking at people in the neighborhood, have reached 21, some f them will be using their income to rent an apartment, further their education, to they want to ings spend. some others will be spending on

willrs and baby food, they continue to live at home with their moms because they need with child care. those lessons are also going to be useful. that oncely important again we as much as possible, people to think in terms of the consequences of their actions and the universal basic income, i think is benign way of doing that. support.des but it also highlights the ways choices you make, that is how much money you have. ost: joe from brandywine, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning, pedro, and good morning, mr. murray. are live nothing a fantasy world, there are people out here distressed and very poor and people around them are poor. they can look for assistance. grew up with five -- four sister and my

mother took care of all of us without a father. making $35 a week, as a waitress, and we paid $70 a rent and she took care f all of us without the welfare. there was a short period of time she did need the welfare, got on and we were able to survive. job, she got d a off welfare and that is what welfare is for. vilified e, you everyone on welfare as a indigent, people -- have i done that? caller: you see, the thing of it is, welfare is immediate people to pass into trying othing to get something. host: thank, caller.

let our guest respond. sir, i guess when you say some people live in neighborhoods where they are is poor,everybody else let's talk about a couple of adults.where you got 100 i'm talking about pumping in a illion dollars into that group of people in terms of the basic guaranteed income. talking about pumping actual dollars, spendable dollars into neighborhoods, far in excessive what they have to deal with right now. for making it possible people who hit rough patches to have something to fall back on. i am also making it possible as they try to get out of those to out of the it with a boost. o they got a low-paying job, they've still got extra $10,000 think due respect, sir, i this program is intended assumption that

of n beings need dignity being considered moral agents and provides resources which their ability to make good on that. host: one line in your book underpinnings of your proposal. umans tend to act in ways that advance their own interest. guest: yes, yes. do ie add, pedro, not only ot vilify people at the bottom need welfare, on the contrary, i have another passage in the book know what, if i am young, living in a poor i don't have a good education, all of this talk dream and merican about you ought to take advantage of your opportunities, onlys pretty empty and not that, i would be tempted either get some money on the gray or and i would also be tempted to gain in the current

asserting my of dignity. in my view, what the universal income it is is give people who have never had a believe it.e to the message, your life is now in that is the reason i title the book, "in our hands." to put ability to shape our lives back in our hands. michigan.ckbridge, chris, good morning. caller: good morning. i am 67. raised my three sons alone, no help from their dad. disabled 10 years ago, my 125% below the federal guideline. in my got a $3 increase

social security, then the state deducted $2 from my food stamps, so i have a net raise of $1. a week foring me $35 food. you can't feed one person on $35 week. shopping, i grocery had two bags of grocery and it cost me $80. up,price of everything goes but when you live in poverty, if a nickel or a dime, they take a nickel. concept is frightening because as a baby boomer, we oh, you pay into medicare, we'll deduct it, when it, it will be there. years paid, i worked 38 for lawyers, they never offered retirement. when i raised my boys, i was

staying alive, me lawyers never paid retirement. 125% belowike i said, federal poverty guidelines. i cannot work. i only eat one meal a day. ahead.o aller: it's costing $1200 a year to pay $100 a month for promised when was they took it out of our checks, going to be there for you. host: thanks, chris, we'll leave it there. you're talking about your situation under the current system, okay. my response is, this is one reason i would like to have it done differently. and e back off from that say, okay, suppose we had a difference system. and it starts in '21.

go back to the time you were 21 you had grownup under the system, i suggest of ways in l sorts which you will not find yourself in a situation you are in right now. the greatest mistakes we ise about the current system to think that because the system things, will do certain it is accomplishing it. people we will keep above the poverty line and yet we end up with people way below poverty line. i'm saying that a simple system people money will not stupid people from doing things. and some people will end up sir, i'm not way, saying you have, i'm saying some eople end up living swallowed lives because they don't make choices that would have enabled escape it. if you grew up in a situation

here 21 on you have this resource, the odds that you reach your age with kinds of going to ou face are be a whole lot less than the chances you face the problems current system. host: let's hear from walter in line.husetts, independent caller: good morning, c-span, how you doing? me? you hear host: you're on, go ahead, walter. aller: yeah, charles, i'm listening to your idea and i think it is a great idea, it is a lot actical and makes of sense. i'm hearing a lot of people's i think that is one problem i see about change in people are ot of scared. think we get bamboos and jerked around a lot. to hear, i don't know who you hear you coming up with this plan is like, who this guy is. lot of americans look at you like, who is this guy and what

is this idea. we are going to be skeptical. a person that feels that something like this has to be society because there is a lot of unnecessary in the powerful country and it is embarrassing already. concern is how feasible and real this is. the truth, politician sitting here thinking uh-huh, this e, can't happen, you know what i'm saying? whatever, downer or i think any good idea deserves a shot. host: thank, caller. guest: i'm glad you raised that issue because practicability is big deal and the conqueress of the united states of america has not shown it is very good at changes that large put aside private interest and the rest of the track record is bad.y here are a couple thoughts.

one is, the basic income is support from all sides of political spectrum. self-identified as libertarian. freedman is the guy who initially had the idea of negative income tax, similar to basic income. left, also e increasingly looking at a basic the way to go. ndy stern, former head of the largest union in the country is advocate of the universal basic income. the reasons are essentially similar to mine. we are spending all this money are doing such a bad job this is g human needs, a better, simpler way. support is there is growing bipartisan. the second thing is, we haven't at all, the this entitlement programs we have now unsustainable expenditure

curve. everybody agrees on that. look out, being 20 years, aren't going to be able to do it. there will have to be radical change. the congress simply is not going to kick this can down the road forever. goingere in the future is to be an opportunity for politicians to say, is there do this and i hope the contribution i will have made and that andy other lle made and advocates for it is not that our specific plan will be enacted in every detail as we wanted it, but we pointed the way toward a sensible framework. host: columbia, missouri, gene, hello. caller: hi, i have two comments. period, ink this is what reason is there behind our bring people who are not from this country into our country, give them free this and that

and not take care of our own citizens.rst, own number two, it makes me -- i'm african american woman and i'm been that way all my life. i'm sitting here with a fifth raised three n, kids who are educated. i was raised in the state system molested, and i was taken away from my parents, was jurisdiction,ourt under the custody of the state, nd was taken away from a molested situation at 12 and given back to that same okay.ter, not educated, i'm under state stuff.y doing all this yet i strife to hope for a better day, every day and i made it. i'm sitting here with a fifth grade education, but i still hope in me.ive and now i own three homes, i'm not anything.e or i -- you know what i'm saying, i raised my kids, i raised my kids because i hope for a better day.

my kids are educated, married, lord, they owe no one nothing. od gave me a wonderful husband who seen me for who i am, i am not a quitter and i believe people are putting their trust man, more than in god and their god-given ability to push regardless of anything. host: we'll have to leave it there, we're running out of time. guest: two quick reactions. one is, the program i'm the idea that ve a person like you had has this program to support the things done with your life. the second thing is, if we're of ing about the issue immigration and illegal immigration and so forth, this program pretty much takes care that because the basic income is available to united states period., host: as far as proposals, you capital t interest on hill. have you talked to anybody in the incoming administration or

doing so?n guest: no, i'm a public never-trumper, i don't think i'm going to be getting a call from new administration and the he will notect said touch entitlements. aligned more closely ith paul ryan, who i'm not going to talk about the specifics of the plan, but prepared to say, we've got to look at this crisis down entitlements. host: the book is called "in our ands," plan to replace the welfare state. charles murray, a scholar at american enterprise institute. thank you for your time. state of the electoral college, we want your thoughts changes to re need electoral college since the last election. if you are interested in calling give us your thoughts. 02-748-8001 if you support the electoral college. 202-748-8000 if you oppose it. as ill take those calls

"washington journal" continues. >> c-span, history unfolds daily created as aan was public service by america's cable television companies and by your t to you today satellite provider. > tonight on the communicators -- >> if we had to strike two regulations to do so, which can have a lot of regulations that can go. we would have effective and agency and more opportunity for providers to consumers. talks about reilly chaufrj under the trump administration. >> there is concern about cyber for a y and has been while and it is getting a particular amount of attention

right now with what happened campaign. does the fcc have a role in that and what is it? is a very important issue and one congress has been aggressive on, finding the right solutions. i think other agencies are, as well, doing so. the fcc's role is limited by the us, te that governs communication act of 1934. i believe government has role to potentially provide additional fixes in this space, aren't authorized for us to do. communicators tonight at 8 eastern on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: again, your thoughts on if is time to make changes to the electoral college process, in electors meet today individual states to cast votes for period and vice president. if you want to see some of the process play out on television,

11:00 this an at morning. we will not only discuss overall hat is going on today, but we'll bring highlights from four states, springfield, illinois, pennsylvania, lansing, michigan, richmond, virginia. ou can see that starting at 11:00 today. go to c-span.org, for it, mation and if you have listen on your c-span radio app. make think it is time to changes to the electoral college or not, here is your chance to give us a call. the electoral 202-748-8000. 202-748-8001 is the number to call if you oppose the electoral college. we will take calls up until 10:00 this morning. day, the to this electors are set to meet, a celebrities under united for america, took to "hoping on with the ad to encourage some electors to

far as heir vote," as president-elect trump is concerned. here is a portion of that ad. republican members of the electoral college, this message is for you. founding w, our fathers built the electoral college to safe guard the frel danger of demagogue and ensure presidency to an someone who is eminent degree endowed with qualification. >> eminent degree. someone who is highly qualified for the job. the electoral college was created specifically to prevent from becoming president. -- fri 538e 5 tlt members of the electoral college. >> by voting your conscious on 18th.er >> shape the future of the nation. > not asking you to vote for hillary clinton. >> i'm not asking you to vote

for hillary clinton. constitution gives electors right to vote for any eligible person. eligible person. >> it should be someone you consider especially competent. especially competent to serve as president of the united states of america. your conscious, you and other brave republican the house sist give of representatives the option to select a qualified candidate for presidency. >> i stand with you. >> i stand with you. with you. ost: again, that is the group united we stand. if you think it is time to make changes to electoral college or here is your chance to let us know. 202-748-8000 if you support the and oral college 202-748-8001 if you oppose it. we will start with john this morning. he klyn, new york, who says opposes it. john, you are on, go ahead. caller: how you toing? for taking my call.

i think this whole system should be redid. something set up that is honest, man, one vote counts. you understand there is no eason, hello -- host: go ahead, you are on. > no reason to have a system that only like monday, today, 00 people decide what millions of people voted for. illary clinton got 3 million votes more than trump, but he's the winner, that don't make we can't have one person, one vote and that way.em work that i don't like this electronic vote. today, 0 people voting they got it in their hands, they are the ones that can decide who is.president i don't understand. thank you. host: jim is next. is in pitsford, new york. supporter of the electoral

college. not educated in civics anymore, so for people to ecide today we don't need an electoral college, they don't have the information they need to make an educated decision. they are making is a decision on what is good for them today. just like the last gentleman, decide. well, yes, house of m are in the representatives and they are the voice of the people, that is who that. there for that makes us the only country world that institutes a rule, ent not by a mob which would be democracy. constitutional e republic. on until people get educated school again, so they can understand it, we have to rely who are he founders very educated, put in place.

thank you. of : the man at the center today's electoral college vote, president-elect donald trump before today's events saying if my many threaten those like those who lost the election are doing, they would be scorned and called terrible names. brian, woodbridge, you are on. you.r: thank electoral college, it was put in help to protect fwaens the majority. that means just a few, hundred million or less than a voters there with the popular vote and electoral vote went the person who had million votes left then that be in place, protecting tyranny.from the working the opposite way.

tyranny of the minority. even ion votes are not close, you know. little to be tweaked a bit because it is like out of disparate from the popular sxroet working the opposite direction. host: to you have thoughts on should be done in the tweaking process? caller: yes, i would say, you getting over million votes past the popular vote and went one way and the popular vote went the other way, more than a million, maybe person for every million get certain electoral votes for that. the other part of where the electoral college is, i'm in the protect,cause it it is back in the original day, they didn't have the internet or radio, so they had the pony express. to campaigngue went across the country and got the

popular vote, through conartistry and lying, and then by the time get to washington, to do the electoral, my god, this guy lied about was. that he protected against information lag of the pony express and said, we can't let this guy conhis way into office when he sxeft criminal and got connection with foreign countries and that protected against that. brian, we will leave it there. the political report, go to cook political dot com, they keep a unning tell of popular votes brought in, that total, by the way, as stands for hillary 844, 594.65 million for donald trump, the popular 62,979,616, 7 million or so other votes listed there. by the swing state and other categories.

is where youl.com, find that. flo in wyoming, opposer of the electoral college. hello. caller: hello. recall from civics class, it would have taken six onths before the president was known. the electoral college was set up on that basis. have immediate on ledge of what was going in our elections. electoral college is -- was it is no a then, but longer. we need electoral college popular d and rely on vote and today we have a much system. host: we'll continue on with

your calls, show you couple as we go along for remainder of the time. this is "wall street journal," a look at president obama nd please for clemency he's been receiving in the few months he has in office. reinhart say manager obama received more for clemency because of efforts to encourage inmates to etition for one if sentenced before 2010 law. senator ions, the incoming attorney general, under the trump administration pearheading the legislation which lightened penalties for rack users, but opposes applying to inmates retroactively mrchlt obama is more conscious than some suggest, he has granted 3% of requests, only000 granted fewer p

percent percentage. compare that along with other presidents, as well. look for a few seconds as we go to the next call on the electoral college fredericktown, ohio. clarence.hi, c-span.thank you for oppose electoral college in one way. popular vote should rule. electoral college is going to do what it is supposed to do, this would be the time to this man that there is no way that is what we got. rid of.d be gotten they can do that, then maybe they ought to keep it. that is my view. you. host: diana from missouri.

you.morning to the r: yes, i oppose electoral college vote because i it is t should be that whatever the people want. yeah, if you g, cannot represent the united states of america as years ago jefferson's time, you shouldn't be a president. he doesn't even talk like a president. he owes taxes. get that electoral vote, how did they say yes, he president?e host: from rich, in next up.etts, you're caller: hi. host: hi. good, okay. when i was going to school, i'm a senior citizen, when i was to school, the president stepped down because he was we say expenditures of

have hadt he shouldn't cookie jar.the the next year, we were supposed to get vote on what the on scholarship for people that had a straight b never got.ich we opposing electoral college, that is part of education f. someone is going to assert a mandate for education from you because bureaucracy got their hands jar, then he cookie where are we? we're totally lost. 'm watching the moderator on the phone on t.v. and i just knowing we have donald trump after january 20th, of this year, he's going to be our president, he tells ya, i'm make this country great.

well, in order to do that, you have to do something. not going to do it, that is one reason why i'm opposing vote.lectoral i need your comment, sir, say a in your behalf that will help us. comments to ep my myself and let others respond as they wish to do so. of changing the electoral college, you may decide to comment directly on things ious guest or have you heard. 202-748-8000 if you support the electoral college. 202-748-8001 if you oppose it. he business section of the "wall street journal" this morning looks at after effects of what might happen when it comes to mortgages, from the recent announcement from the federal reserve of increase in short-term interest rates or interest rates saying the feds blowincrease is the second to the past five weeks for borrowers, nders and rates on fixed rate mortgages

have surged since election day zero.76 percentage point, highest n thursday, rate since april 2004, according news website mortgage daily.com. he most immediate pain, the stories, will be felt on home loan front, felt by homeowners lines of or equity credit, for people who want to borrow against mortgage of their for renovations. increased tes have says the president of mortgage information website, these types see increase in interest rate and monthly payment within billing one to three cycles, according to that person. artha from washington, d.c., supporter of the college, good morning. caller: good morning. support the electoral because that is the law and nobody can change that.

nobody wants corrupt like hillary clinton. deserve to be t president of the united states, that is my point. host: birmingham, alabama, on.hard, go ahead, you're caller: yes, i think with the people in the united states now compared before with small amount of when they wrote this bill or whatever, 365 should be trusted to one person, one vote, like all of the world, most country in the world does this. throwback with paper, signing a piece of

that the south will never vote for dem kras anymore. what i have to say. host: los angeles times this morning, foreign policy, of associated press this morning about the president-elect donald trump, telling leader necessary china military drone that has been in the news as of late saying the president-elect says chinese government should be told "we don't want the drone they stole back, let them keep it," that was a tweet sent aturday evening after u.s. officials confirm they secured understanding for the return of the u.s. underwater glider which china sees in the south china to one ments may extend of the most serious incidents between the military this year. the chinese navy sees the drone on thursday, it was being contractorscivilian to conduct oceanic research. he u.s. lodged complaint and demanded the drone back. said chinese there navy life boat discovered the

unknown device and quoted to oppose order danger of passing ship specials life boat the chinese adopted responsible attitude in investigating and verifying the device. tweet that was sent from the president-elect trump twitter, there it is, we should tell china we don't drone they -- let them keep it. richard in birmingham, alabama. hello. caller: yes, i was continuing to -- that host: richard, did we already talk to you? caller: yes, we did. for that.ogy john in tennessee. adamsville, tennessee, hi there. good morning. i would like to say that the college has been very successful and if it wasn't for college, you would never see a politician in utah or south dakota

and y other small states that is exactly why they set up the electoral college was to the large state from eciding who the president was going to be. that populations would ongregate in certain areas and that certain areas would outgrow others. gives all this way it the states a piece of the game couple of states. host: okay. thinktalking about if you changes are needed to the electoral college, see the process play out today on c-span starting at 11:00. one of four locations, illinois, , harrisburg, pennsylvania, michigan, and virginia. hat is at c-span.org, courtesy

of the c-span radio app. jacksonville, rom florida. caller: hi. i want to mention that president popular vote and and lectoral vote, twice, republicans claimed he didn't have a mandate. that trump has not won the opular vote, i mean, the point is, republicans consistently and democrats, legislation, creating private infrastructure, i mean, they consistently cob instructed so that i guess low information voters would lame obama and democrats for all the miseries. republicans will put through infrastructure and xpecting democrats to help them. democrats know we have bridges dangerous and roads

that need repairing. hypocrisy of republicans that is just so evident. much. you so host: new york times this morning has follow-up to events talking aboutria, the united nations role going on in the conflict there. hubbard and sungupta saying feuding in syria and united nations underlineup complexity f forces on the ground receive support from range of opposing agenda often clash. there was an initial deal to remove civilians and fighters districts in the area. the implementation has been hamp the by parties who oppose deal and have residents of other besieged communities evacuated, well. the deal within united nations monitor to observe the after ion process consultation with interested parties, which means the

turned downcount be by soldiers and milittia on the ground. repeatedly said they sought theer and he government permission to be president during the evacuation rocess and they have not received it. edinburg, virginia. hi. aller: hey, how are you this morning? host: fine, thank you. go ahead. aller: all these liberals are whiners. they whine if it was done by the by the vote and he won popular vote, they would be whining about that. put inctoral college was place by people who had some founding fathers. , small dn't have that states would never count. ever havee that would any -- in this election would be and all thenew york chicago, ins like in

florida, although i don't know about florida, that was a shock to me he won so good down there. but anyway, swallow your pride, up, and just e it relax because i think you'll be heck of a lot a better than we've been in the last eight years, so anyway, christmas, sir. host: national archives tells us lotment of entitle a electors what they get equals number of members and delegation, one for each member of the house, n. total, r senators 538 electors voting today in houses across the united states and it take mas electoral votes to elect a president. that decision being made today, year, that those votes and casted votes will be

brought to capitol hill, tallied in the senate and that process plays out as the as part of the picking president. again, learn more at 11:00 this coveragey watching our of goings on when it comes to today's vote counting by the college. teresa, from illinois, hello, on. are caller: hello. i am opposite of the electoral because i think the people is who is selecting the not the electoral college. that is the way that bush also the second term and i think he people have the right to elect the electoral college, i president, and we cannot do it because the electoral college. that's it. you. host: corona, california, ted, good morning. morning, sir. 'd simply like to say we live

in the united states of america, not the united people of america. and just as we have compromise the house and the senate, we have the same in our electoral process. you do the math, that is 100 from what f 540 come i call the compromise. as gentleman from tennessee and woman was from spoke a few moments ago, without the new york and ege, california would vote. i happen to be a trump live in california. i vote for the president nothing,mined, it means but thank god for the electoral college and that's my real point. you.k host: "u.s.a. today" reporting that the army has named to review itsicer burgeoning problem of sexual among senior officials and shocking suicide this summer of a top general. announced by the army secretary eric fanning to

"u.s.a. today." he army also instituted a procedure that prompts review of security clearance of top brass investigation of misconduct. the new approach to clearances, civilian t troops and access to national security secret stems from "u.s.a. today" officer who ior fired from his job last spring, allowed to retain clear asbestos several months. carbon will -- john rossy who killed himself according to fanning. ben from birney, missouri, thank nothing today. you are on the air fwchlt ahead. caller: yes, i want to respond who commented a little while ago about liberals whining. that democrats would have the issues they have hillary had had or rubio or asich, bush. the issue is trump, not an issue

republican, or hillary lost and now everybody losing.t about hillary it is a matter of stopping a man cause a lotsolutely of serious damage and life and loss of life. this is, he is already demonstrating he's not fit for office. he's destroying the relationship e have with major super power in this world. i mean, this is ridiculous what this man is doing. to the ulted his way position he's in. that alone should wake people up make them adults with intelligence and understand he fit, he doesn't belong in the office of president. i mean, this is ridiculous, the people who have the power to do this man need to something and do it today, please. ost: one more call, that is david from oak dale, new york,

you are on, go ahead. good morning. i want to say that a lot of the a lot of just reflect the how, but basically electoral college is very populations the within each state, one of the callers told us about that. was the only caller. lot of liberals still feel hillary clinton isn't guilty of anything, the democrats have lot of games, saying donald trump and russia hacked no, they didn't. there is a lot of lies and i donald trump couldn't be thanbetter for the country obama. after eight years we have nothing. york. that is david in new off of the last call this morning. stay close to c-span, especially c-span.org, for events of the

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 11h