TalkBack Live

Should America Get Rid of the Electoral College?

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: It's time for Electoral College to close down. It's time to put this constitutional dinosaur permanently in a museum.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOBBIE BATTISTA, HOST: American voters go to the polls tomorrow to choose a president, but it's possible tomorrow's winner could lose the election. That's because the real choice will be made in December by 538 members of the Electoral College.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DURBIN: It really does disenfranchise voters.

DAVID EPSTEIN, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: We live in a republic, not a democracy, and the founders were very careful to say that they were worried about allowing people to directly elect representatives.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Exactly what does your vote mean, how much does it count? And who are those people in the Electoral College?

Good afternoon, everyone, welcome to TALKBACK LIVE.

Well, tomorrow is the day that you, the people, vote. Who has the edge right now? Let's take a look at this map. It shows the 26 states where it appears that George W. Bush has a lead. Those states are worth 224 electoral votes. Al Gore has a lead in 12 states, and the District of Columbia, for a combined total of 181 electoral votes. There are 133 electoral votes in 12 states where neither candidate currently has a lead. So, Bush, 26 states, Gore, 12 and D.C., and the difference in electoral votes is only 43.

Here to talk about winning the vote and losing the election first with us today is Larry Sabato, the Robert Kent Gooch professor of government and foreign affairs at the University of Virginia. He is director of the university's center for government studies. Larry, thanks for joining us.

LARRY SABATO, POLITICAL SCIENTIST, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA: Thank you, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: Let's back up just a little bit. What is the Electoral College, how does it work?

SABATO: The Electoral College has a very simple mechanism. Each of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia is given the same number of votes as its total representation in Congress, the number of House of Representatives members, plus the two senators. Now, by constitutional amendment, the District of Columbia is also given three electoral votes.

BATTISTA: Why did the founding fathers feel like we needed the Electoral College, and have we always had it?

SABATO: We've always had the Electoral College. The founders saw the Electoral College as a filter between popular view and the actual selection of a presidency. Remember, the founders were very concerned about pure majoritarian rule, what some called "the tyranny of the majority." They wanted to make sure that presidents were selected by people who were fully informed, well informed on the issues, and who actually knew the candidates well, since in those days we didn't have instant communications.

BATTISTA: Basically, what they were saying that is they really didn't trust the people to elect the president?

SABATO: I think that's what it boils down to, Bobbie. The truth is that the founders, for some good reasons, early on did not trust the popular vote, and I think it's fair to say many people in this country, many adults were really not prepared at that time to participate in electoral politics. All that has long since changed, but the Electoral College has remained for some good reasons and some bad reasons.

BATTISTA: So, now these folks who are the electors, how do they -- who are they and how do they get the job?

SABATO: They are selected by state, they are selected by their state parties essentially. The process differs a bit from state to state, but by and large the electors, who are residents of each of the congressional districts throughout their state, plus some statewide representatives, tend to be party activists, they sometimes are local elected officials, or state senators, or state representatives.

Many times, they are simply people who have put in 20 or 30 years working for the party, and most of all, they are considered loyal, they can be counted upon to vote for the party's candidate if the party's candidate wins that state. And remember, all of the electoral votes for a state are cast for the candidate who carries even one more vote than any of the other candidates, except in Nebraska and Maine, which have a different system.

BATTISTA: Is that pledge that they make to the candidate rock- solid, or can they change their vote at the last minute?

SABATO: Well, in the vast majority of the cases it is rock- solid. However, from time to time in American history, we have had what we call "faithless electors," and these are people who while pledge to a particular candidate made up their mind on the basis of a personal principle and cast a ballot for somebody else. Give you one example: In 1976, which was really a very close election in the Electoral College between President Ford and Jimmy Carter, who won that election and became president, one of Gerald Ford's electors decided that he would not vote for Ford and instead cast a ballot for Ronald Reagan.

BATTISTA: I just happen to have a Georgia state elector in the audience today, B.J. Lopez is with us and -- have you been doing this for a long time, or is this something that was new this election?

B.J.: You mean in the party or as an elector?

BATTISTA: As an elector.

B.J.: I was an elector in the last election and I did cast a vote for Bob Dole. George was carried by the Dole camp team, so I did vote in that election.

BATTISTA: And are -- I take it you have a long history with the Republican Party?

B.J.: Yes, 25 years in the state of Georgia, and then as a young person when I was growing up in Maryland I was involved in politics.

BATTISTA: So you would always vote Republican, you would not change your vote?

B.J.: Not this time for the Electoral College, but what I have always done, and a lot of us have done, is we've voted for the candidate in the Republican side. It's up to us to field the very best candidates that we can field, so while I am, yes, a very loyal Republican and I do intend and have every confidence that I will get to cast my electoral vote for George Bush, that's because in my opinion he is the best individual, not because of the party.

BATTISTA: Larry, one of the questions that came up earlier was why is it that most states have winner-take-all with the electoral votes?

SABATO: It maximizes their influence, Bobbie. If -- most of the states are medium or small states, and so in order to attract candidates to their states they want to be able to offer a reasonably large package of electoral votes, so that's why they package them altogether, put a ribbon around it and award them to the person who receives the most votes.

As I told you, two states don't do that, Maine and Nebraska; in those cases, if a candidate carries a single congressional district, then that candidate can get one electoral vote even if the rest of the state, all the other congressional districts vote for the other candidate. And by the way, the candidate winning the popular vote in the state gets the two electoral bonus votes that are allocated for the two senators in that state, two U.S. senators. BATTISTA: My head is spinning. I hope there's not a test after this whole thing.

SABATO: I will have to give you a test, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: Yes. Question from Brian, or comment.

BRIAN: I can see where, you know, years ago when we had 13 and 15 states early on that, that might have seemed a nice way to balance population, that sort of thing, but the U.S. population is to a point now where you've got California carrying, you know, 1/10 of the entire country's electoral votes. Why do we still have to have the winner- take-all? Why can't there be some sort of apportionment, you know, if there's a 75 percent carry, 3/4 of the electors could vote for that candidate? Has that sort of concept been thought of?

SABATO: Yes. In fact, that's how Maine and Nebraska do it to some degree. Remember, it's up to each state. Each state can determine the allocation of its electoral votes as it chooses.

Let me also mention one other thing which adds another ingredient to this, too. About half of the states require by statute that their electors vote for the candidate who carries the popular vote, and most of those states fine or even jail an elector that does not vote for the popular choice. Of course, that means half the states don't do anything at all, thereby, in a way, encouraging their electors to be faithless.

BATTISTA: Really? Wow, I didn't know that.

What if there's a tie? What if they each get 269 electoral votes apiece?

SABATO: There have been two studies this year on that. One study claimed that there are 68 ways for there to be a 269 to 269 tie. Another study claimed that there were 80 ways. All I can tell you is there are dozens of ways for the Electoral College to tie 269 to 269.

Now what would happen? Well, you have an elector there. If George Bush, as expected, carries Georgia tomorrow, she and her colleagues will gather in the State Capitol, probably at the end of November. They will cast their electoral votes. They will be sealed up, sent to Congress. The other 49 states and the District of Columbia will do the same.

But at those state meetings, those electors may choose in these (UNINTELLIGIBLE) states to do whatever they wish. You may have faithless electors.

So what appears to be a tie on election night may not be a tie by the end of November, or it may not be a tie when the votes are read out in Congress early in the new year, in the new Congress. The new Congress counts the electoral vote for each state, and of course, also, if there is a tie, if it does persist, then the House of Representatives will choose the next president. And here's how it will choose it, and this is really going to confuse you. Each state is a unit in the House of Representatives, and each state gets one vote. Yes, that's right, California will have one vote and Delaware will have one vote. New York will have one vote and Wyoming will have one vote. And the members of the House of Representatives from each state will caucus, will vote and will determine how their state casts its ballot.

Here's the really frightening thing. Suppose the California House of Representatives delegation is tied with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. Then conceivably California, the megastate, will cast no vote for the next president, whereas all the small states will be able to cast a ballot.

Finally, in the House, you must have 26 votes, a majority of the state delegations, to be elected president. If no candidate after innumerable ballots has a majority by January 20th, then the vice president-elect, who will be elected by a majority of the Senate, will take office as acting president and will remain acting president until the House of Representatives can manage to accumulate 26 state votes for a particular candidate for president. That could last for two full years. Conceivably even after the next congressional election in 2002, the vice president could still be serving as acting president for the entire presidential term.

BATTISTA: Wowie! I'm sorry I asked. May we not have a tie tomorrow. That's for sure.

SABATO: That's what my...

BATTISTA: You're going to be...

SABATO: Bobbie, that's what my students...

BATTISTA: You will become a permanent guest on this show if that happens.

SABATO: Bobbie, my students also are sorry they asked. Very similar.

BATTISTA: All right, Larry. You've given us an awful lot here to mull over. Thanks very much for joining us today once again.

SABATO: Thank you.

BATTISTA: All right.

SABATO: Thanks.

BATTISTA: Now that we know why the system is the way it is, do you think it is time to change it? We'll talk about the trouble with our republic or democracy in just a minute. First, if you will, take part in our TALKBACK LIVE online viewer vote at cnn.com/talkback. Today's question: Should we get rid of the Electoral College system? We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Welcome back, and before we continue here, to all of my PETA friends who are sending in e-mail and everything, this is a fake fur. I would not wear a real fur on the air, OK? Just let us straighten that out.

All right, joining us now Bruce Fein, a constitutional scholar and columnist for "The Washington Times," and Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor at "The Atlanta Constitution." Welcome to both of you.

BRUCE FEIN, CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR: Thank you.

BATTISTA: Cynthia, you think the time has come to eliminate the Electoral College. Why?

CYNTHIA TUCKER, "THE ATLANTA CONSTITUTION": I do, Bobbie. It's archaic. It belongs to another time in distant, distant history, and on Sunday, "The Atlanta Journal Constitution" ran an editorial saying that the Electoral College should be abolished.

I was reviewing some history and going over some of the conversations from the Constitutional Convention, and one delegate said that -- and there was an argument, of course, between those who wanted a direct vote by the people and those who thought Congress should elect the president. And one man who believed Congress should elect the president said that, oh, well, the voters will not be sufficiently informed and they will be led around by a few strong men.

Well,that sounds pretty elitist. It also hearkens back to a day before there was a CNN, before there was an Internet, before there was radio even. And so that it is true that the average voter had difficulty getting information about the candidates. That is certainly not true today.

BATTISTA: Bruce, as -- how difficult would it be to even enact something like that, since it is part of the Constitution?

FEIN: Well, you'd need to have two-thirds of the Congress of the United States vote in favor of such an amendment and then have it ratified by three-quarters of the states. It's that latter hurdle that I think makes the likelihood of any change almost zero, because you have more than 12 small states that benefit from the existing system and they're unlikely to take action that will reduce their political clout.

I would like, however, to add an observation that I think the way in which the electoral system works in fact really is not very derogatory of popular information and popular vote and influence on the outcome of our presidential races. The fact is that even though half of the states require that electors reflect popular vote in casting electoral votes and half do not, by and large, the Constitution of the United States allows a challenge to a so-called "faithless elector" if they sought to divide popular will. It really has happened on only rare occasion, and it's never been decisive. The only time in our history where it was important was in 1876 when there were 20 disputed electoral votes between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden. The Congress created a 15-member electoral commission, took evidence, ultimately voted to award the 20 votes to Rutherford B. Hayes. Congress declined to disturb that ruling and the 20 catapulted Hayes into the presidency. So, even though on its face it may seem that the Electoral College is disparaging of popular information and control over the outcome of the election, the way it operates, in fact, really belies that appearance.

BATTISTA: Cynthia, what would be the alternative, then. Are you talking one man, one vote?

TUCKER: Absolutely, do away with the Electoral College altogether. Why do we have it? Why do we need it. Most Americans believe that they directly elect the president of the United States. And I heard someone comment earlier this is a republic. It is true this is a representative democracy. What that means is all of us don't cast votes on issues such as free trade with China. We send our Congresspersons forward to do that. But it is important that each voter have a direct say in the election of the president. And that does not happen with the Electoral College.

Let me give you an example. Georgia has 13 Electoral College votes. Wyoming has three. But because of the way -- Georgia has a much bigger population than Wyoming, about 13 times. So we really ought to have 13 times more Electoral College votes than Wyoming does. And as it comes out, every vote in Wyoming counts for about four votes in Georgia. And so the national will is not reflected.

FEIN: I think that argument proves too much because what it suggests is the Senate of the United States ought also to be abolished. Her observation also goes with regard to the fact that Wyoming has two senators and Georgia has two senators and California has two senators. And she is suggesting that we need to abolish the Senate because that doesn't fairly reflect a one person, one vote theory.

TUCKER: Absolutely not, I didn't say one thing about the Senate. I said it is more important that the national will be directly reflected in the election of the president of the United States.

BATTISTA: Well, Bruce, what is wrong with one man, one vote?

FEIN: There's nothing wrong with giving it very powerful weight, but not necessarily decisive weight. I think the idea of giving some regions, small states, a marginally greater voice at the national level than large states contributes to a national glue. We need to remember that the system for more than 112 years has invariably resulted in the winner of the popular vote being president of the United States. So, the current system does not operate in a way that suggests popular majorities don't ordinarily get their way with regard to the White House. But occasionally, it does work a little bit against the grain of pure majoritarianism, just like the Senate works a little bit against the House of Representatives in that way. I think, on the whole, it makes ourself a little more pluralistic and diverse nation.

BATTISTA: I got to take a break. We'll continue. Our B.J.. I'll get to you when we come back and I'll do some e-mails. Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Welcome back.

Let me do a couple of e-mails here. Kyle (ph) in Texas says, as uninformed and disinterested as American people are, perhaps our founders have a valid point, we aren't trustworthy. Darryl in Eddington (ph) says, voter turnout would increase if people knew their vote would actually count toward their candidate. That's an interesting point.

I want to come back to that, but, Will, go ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just believe we need to retain the Electoral College for the same reasons that our founders implemented it to begin with. It's a way for the people to connect through the presidential electors, who instead of being no-name people that nobody knows, should be people of reputation in the community that stake their reputation on the reputation and the integrity of the candidate they are forwarding as a party. And that hasn't been the case. For instance, with Nixon, who knows who his electors were? We ought to hold them accountable and nobody knows who they are. And it will be the same way this time around if we elect the president who is part of the pseudo-aristocracy that Jefferson said may very well have sway in this country.

BATTISTA: We are big on accountability, aren't we?

TUCKER: We need to remember how dramatically the nation has changed since the constitutional convention. For one thing, we are much more transient nation. The founders were much more interested in protecting the interest of the individual states because this was a time when the population of individual states varied a lot across the country. And people were not transient. They were born and died in the same communities, maybe 10-mile radius.

This is a very transient population now. We don't need to worry about protecting state interests. We need to have a truly national election and the Electoral College prevents you from doing that. Also, it seems to me, it is not very practical to think about most voters, knowing most electors, unless, on Democratic side, for example, most of the electors are elected officials, like Roy Barnes. Many voters voted for him years ago and certainly we know his reputation. But the idea that we could have average citizens as electors, and most of them would know -- most of us would know them personally, I think is probably a bit far-fetched.

BATTISTA: Bruce, this is hard for people. For example, why should Julie or John or whatever, tomorrow, go to the polls and vote for Al Gore, when for a long time the 13 electoral votes in the state of Georgia have been in the Bush column and are most likely going to go to Bush.

How do you -- what's in it for the Democratic voter in this state?

FEIN: Well, first of all, you cast a vote for more than the president. So, you got to the poll to vote for other candidates. Moreover, you'd want to vote simply to show that there was a substantial Democratic turnout and that in, perhaps, the next election, when you have changed demographics and changed candidates, there's a Democrat out there who you can list in their support.

So you don't live or die on one election and one election alone. The second observation I would make is, although I agree with the previous worries about the electoral system not turning into an election by the elite, I think the way in which it operates has responded to the fact that we have popular education, a transient, much more homogeneous nation.

That is, in fact, why that, through custom or law, the electors do not exercise independent judgment. They are not genuine filters between popular vote and the electoral vote. And that's been true for 99.9 percent of every electoral vote cast for two centuries.

BATTISTA: Let me...

FEIN: And, lastly, I don't think it is important to know who the particular electors are, who are overwhelmingly performing a menial function. What is important is that the people understand they are voting, whether it is for an elector or directly to the candidate, for the one of the candidates that's on the ballot there. And I don't believe candidates -- I mean, voters decline to turn out because, technically, an elector serves as a Pony Express for them in going to Washington, and say: Here, I'm voting for Gore or for Bush.

BATTISTA: Let me bring in another voice real quickly here before the break. Sherry Bebitch Jeffe is with us. She is a professor of political science.

SHERRY BEBITCH JEFFE, POLITICAL SCIENTIST: Hi, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: Hey, how are you?

JEFFE: Just fine. My head is swimming.

BATTISTA: You? You're a political scientist -- and a senior associate at the Center for Politics and Economics at Claremont Graduate College in California.

What do you think of all of this?

JEFFE: I think, first of all, that we are running around yelling, "The sky is falling," and we haven't gotten an indication yet that the sky is going to fall. I think we ought to wait until we are hit in the head with a piece of the sky before we decide that the Electoral College isn't working. That's my No. 1 assumption. Number two, I would like to quickly address something that Professor Fein said. And I think he's right. Let's not think that this is simply a matter of turnout for a presidential election. Out here in California, we are ground-zero in the fight for control of the U.S. Congress. We are going to have a high turnout here. And it's only been recently that it's looking like there will be a contest for California's electoral votes.

Thirdly, you know, I'm beginning to think that, as a Californian, I'm fall more incensed by the fact that we had absolutely no say in winnowing the field of those who competed in this general election. I mean, the nominees were decided well before California -- the most representative, the largest state -- had a chance to weigh in. I would much prefer to see the candidates running all over the country in the general election, talking to Iowa then, than having California snubbed in the primary process.

BATTISTA: Good point. We'll pick up on that when we come back. Have to take a break here.

Scott, on the phone, hang on. I will get to you -- and the audience as well, right after the news break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Welcome back. Scott's been hanging on the phone in Washington.

Scott, go ahead. I am sorry. Go ahead.

SCOTT: Yes, I think the Electoral College is a good institution, in part because you can have unpledged electors. So if we ever actually had a viable third party, somebody could have an uncommitted slate that would vote for them if they actually ever had a chance. But then with somebody like Nader, his delegates could vote for Gore instead, if Nader actually didn't get enough.

And the second thing, the states would compete to have more eligible voters by lowering the voting age. They can make it 14 if they want. The 26th Amendment only requires that it be no lower than 18.

BATTISTA: Thanks a lot, Scott.

Cynthia, we were talking during the break about how the Electoral College can affect the strategies, for example.

TUCKER: Indeed. In this campaign, the two major candidates narrowed it to the battleground stats pretty quickly. So, after Labor Day, most states that would were already judged to be committed to either Bush or Gore no longer saw them. In fact, it may be that one of the reasons Sherry and I feel differently on this issue is because California has gotten a lot of attention. And Georgia has gotten very little.

JEFFE: Just recently. Just recently, Cynthia, when the polls started to tighten. It's gotten far more attention from George W. Bush than it did from Al Gore, except in the last week, when the president and the vice president both came to this state, quite concerned about what looks to be a tightening in the polls.

FEIN: And I think those observations short-changed another possible deficiency. That is, if it's pure popular vote, then it will be the big urban areas that attract all the attention. If you don't live in a densely populated area, the candidate will say, well, why should I go recruit in Alaska or in some remote area, in Maine or North Dakota, no one lives there. So New York City and Philadelphia and Chicago and Los Angeles, you know, determine decisively where all the campaigning occurs. I don't see why that's preferable to the current system, which throws the candidates in no particular way in any election, toward states that are very closely contested.

TUCKER: And I don't think that candidates are spending a whole lot of time in remote areas of North Dakota now. But if they campaign mostly in urban areas, at least you have a chance that states, more states, would see more of the candidates.

Georgia has been neglected for much of this presidential campaign season.

FEIN: Well, I don't think that there's any necessary showing that in every single state you have large urban areas compared to the mega-opolises like New York City or Atlanta or Los Angeles or Chicago. Most states don't have them.

JEFFE: Here's an even more harrowing corollary. You're going to see a lot more air war going on, because they're going to be states like California, like New York, where you can hit large populations and small populations through the use of television ads.

Are we all ready for some more of that? I don't think so.

TUCKER: Oh, Sherry, we can address through campaign finance reform.

JEFFE: You bet.

BATTISTA: Yes. Oh, yes.

JEFFE: OK. Can I make a point, because Cynthia has just opened the Pandora's Box. Here we go again. It occurs to me -- and I started thinking about this, this morning when you guys called. During the primary season, we carped about the primaries being outdated. We continually debate the area of campaign financing reform. Now, all of a sudden, we're talking about the Electoral College.

You know what we need to do? Stop it. Step back. Exercise some political courage, some political will, a whole lot of brain power, a whole lot of energy, and honestly say, we've got to look at the whole system. We've been tinkering around the edges from here to there to there to there. We can't simply address it by campaign finance reform. We're not simply going to address it by Electoral College reform. We've got to look at the primary process reform.

But I don't know that any of us have the energy, the enthusiasm. I don't know where the leadership is. And I don't know where the honesty is to say it and get on it.

BATTISTA: I was ready to ask you, you know, where were you going with that. I was...

JEFFE: Where I was going with that...

BATTISTA: I was happy to listen to whatever you were suggesting in that area. But let me go to our elector in the audience, B.J. (ph).

B.J.: One thing I would like to remind everybody -- and something Ms. Tucker said made me think of this -- the Electoral College is weighted. There are two people from each state representing the United States Senate seats. So that that's an equalizing measure.

When it comes to some of these other states that they can be physically large, but they're not populated dense. There is no reason why polar bears and wherever should have a vote. We're talking about human population. And one thing that's critical here is this has been a year where we have a census, and the Electoral College numbers are going to change. The census is what we get our electors and our congressional delegation from, so that when we go through this census and whoever we elect down the ticket, those people and their state legislatures, which is important to us here in Georgia, are going to pick out the -- make the boundaries for our congressional districts. And we in Georgia...

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: OK. I've got to go. I've got to go. We'll be back in a second.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Let's find out quickly what's happening in the chat room. Buck, what's going on?

BUCK: Hi. I've got something from the people saying that Electoral College promotes apathy among voters and preserves the two- party system. Do you think that's true?

TUCKER: Well, we just have another e-mail over here from a voter in -- a Gore voter in Virginia, who says that "My vote and that all of all other Gore supporters does not count. Why should I vote tomorrow?" I assume then that Bush is clearly leading in Virginia and the Electoral College votes, all of them in Virginia, will go to Bush. So this is a voter thinking my one vote doesn't count. All of the Electoral College votes will go to Bush. Why should I go out to the polls? Clearly, that's depressing turnout.

BATTISTA: Sherry? JEFFE: Well, Bobbie, you know, it's disheartening, particularly from a phony voter in Virginia, where there is a raucous, important U.S. Senate race. Where are these people? We are not simply only electing a president. There are offices up and down the ballot. There are critical races up and down the ballot.

I think it's a lazy excuse for people to say: "Why should I vote because my vote doesn't count? X or Y already has the presidency wrapped up."

FEIN: And I think that that observation also ignores the fact that even if you went to a national popular vote system, you could surely get cases -- say, Ronald Reagan and Mondale in 1984 -- where a supporter of Mondale would say, gee, it's clear that Reagan is going to win the vote nationwide, why should I vote at all? So that just going to a national decision doesn't take away from the problem of someone who seems to be supporting a loser is not going to have their vote result in the election of the person they support.

There's another issue here relating to the Electoral College that I think needs to be clarified. Initially, the idea was that states' rights would be protected, because state legislators, not popular votes, state legislators would elect electors. The last state that maintained that system was South Carolina about 150 years ago. So in fact, we do have, to all intents and purposes, a popular vote for the electoral votes in any particular state, and then that's registered at the national level.

It is true that the total number of electoral votes as allocated among the states marginally varies from pure population standard. But it is very marginal, and I don't think it's an affront to our idea that generally speaking the majority ought to rule in presidential elections and in other elections.

BATTISTA: It's a short segment here. I've got to take another break. As we do, let's check the results of our online viewer vote. The question was today, "Should we get rid of the Electoral College system?" Seventy percent are saying yes, 30 percent no. We'll be back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Let me try to get another voice in here from the audience, Ron.

RON: I think the process should be modified, because I would feel like my vote counted more if the electoral votes were allocated based on the proportion of support for each candidate, and it supports what we heard earlier. And I was -- I just learned today that two states do operate in a manner -- in that type of manner, and I think that's appropriate. And I wonder why all the states are not operating in the same manner, because the system just isn't the same, it's not balanced across all of the states.

BATTISTA: Sherry, very quickly, do you favor any sort of modification at all of this system, or you really think we have to go all the way back to go?

JEFFE: Well, I am not quite sure. I do think that we can't look at this in isolation, I am convinced of that, and I know it's never going to happen, that we're going to look at all facets of reform at once. The reality of it is that if there is a concern for the Electoral College that's what we'll look at first. I'm kind of intrigued by not straight proportional representation, but election of electors by congressional district with the bonus, the two senatorial electoral votes being awarded to the statewide victor.

But I have to tell you quite honestly, I have not done any numbers crunching. I am not sure where that gets us. I just would like to, in an ideal world, honestly acknowledge the fact that we cannot look at one aspect of reform without asking the broader question, does our political system meet the needs of the 21st century? And you can't do that looking at any one of these problems in isolation.

FEIN: But as a constitutional matter, there is nothing about the Constitution that prevents every state of the Union from adopting the Maine and Nebraska system.

JEFFE: Right.

FEIN: If that's what the people in a particular state, go ahead and do that. It is permissible under our Electoral College for every state to have allocation on congressional district basis.

BATTISTA: Maybe that's something that will be considered. I have to take another quick break here, and we'll be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: We are totally out of time.

Let me do one more quick e-mail, Emme (ph) in Washington says: "The Electoral College undermines our personal choice. Plus, the media should wait until the polls are closed to announce the winner." A whole another controversial topic. In fact, we'll talk about that tomorrow on the big day.

Thank you all for being with us, Cynthia Tucker, Bruce Fein. And Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, thank you once again. And we'll see you tomorrow on the big day at 3:00 Eastern for more of TALKBACK LIVE.

"STREET SWEEP" is next.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com