it's what's known as jsa, the joint security area here at the dmz.hen the president's arrival, walking right up to the border there for that meeting with the north korean leader. this is history we're going to witness. as we were saying, there is of course the optics of this, and it is a powerful one, and then there is the substance of this. you can hear, i imagine, those helicopters, you have three double rotor helicopters here, a black hawk helicopter, another black hawk as well, these we believe the transports carrying the u.s. president to the border. paula as we were saying, the optics of this moment, there have been no steps by north korea to hem in it nuclear program. what will be the measure of success of this third meeting face-to-face, will it be the fact that they met or the fact that it moves the talks forward? >> well, there is obviously the hope that this ends the stalemate because talks at this point are going nowhere. if the two leaders and it is very much a top down approach. if the two leaders meet once again. if president trump can

. >> known as the jsa.elieve we can see the blue huts you were referencing. >> on the left-hand side side is south korea and on the right-hand side that is the north korean building. in between the blue huts in the middle is that mdl, the military demarcation line. >> that there? >> it's halfway between those blue huts there. >> ok. >> you can see on the other side, the north korean soldiers. you can see the press jostling to get into position. >> we saw the president's secret service there checking out the scene. you can only imagine the challenge they face, the president entrusted with keeping the president safe who at times has had snipers, etc. i'm sure the president received security assurances before coming. if you can see, the blue hut on the right and on the left. there is a line there in the middle ground. that is the border. the 38th parallel that divides north and south and has since the formal end of hostilities in 1953. we should note officially that war is not open. it's an treat. that could b

there at panmunjom, there at the jsa, at the dmz, these houses, these buildings where it is but there's a line down the middle. and that's really the way many koreans feel on the peninsula, that they are living in a divided house, that they want to be rejoined in some form or fashion here. and they must wonder, especially the 10 million in the smallfa tn that you're in there in seoul, about what a militarized north korea can mean to the end of that or to the conflagration that we so much worry about. >> reporter: there is a greath about the cern closeness andco proximity of noh korean artillery. that's not just u.s. officials. that's south korean officials. and that's oneea of the reasons the moon government was brought to power, because they have this open sunshine policy that was started by severalha liberal governments evago. but of direct negotiations. you talk about divisions. one place where they are united, and a that is the trump administration and the moon government. they are on the same page here. i think it bears noting that in some ways the n south korean an the u.s. relati

what i think is remarkable is that actually what the statistics show and this is on page 162 of the jsa is that if you run 24,000 maps with partisanship taken out entirely and you just used traditional principles, you get 162 definite m different maps that produce a 10-3 republican split. it's .7% just to be clear. that's 162 different ways to get to a 10-3 match thp that didn't politics into account at all. >> if you have 24,000 maps that satisfy all of the so-called neutral criteria that you put in your computer program, don't you need a criterion or criteria for deciding which of the 24,000 maps you're going to choose? and implicit in justice kagan's comments is the idea, is it not, that you have to choose one that honors proportional representation? you have no other criteria for distinguishing among the 24,000 maps. >> i think that's right. at a bare minimum, it has to be -- >> mr. clement, let's go back to the why of that. you keep talking about proportional representation, but it's not. because what was shown is that 99% of the time you get a map that is more fair to both parties