►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
All
right,
hello,
everyone
and
thank
you
for
joining
us
today
for
office
hours.
I
see
we
have
a
number
of
people
still
connecting
to
audio
so
come
on
in,
as
that
happens,
our
agenda
for
today
is
is
pretty
short.
We
have
dev
otis
and
rob
richie
from
fairvote
here
to
talk
about
multi-member
districts,
and
then
our
own
bud
williams
will
be
giving
an
update
about
senate
bill
one
that
just
was
released
so
remember
that
you
can
always
put
any
questions
that
you
have
in
the
chat.
A
As
our
speakers
go
along
or
there's
an
opportunity
to,
you
know,
come
on
camera
or
unmute
yourself
and
share
those
questions
at
the
end.
You'll
all
notice
that
wendy
underhill
is
not
here
today,
I'm
mandy
zach
for
those
who
don't.
B
A
And
wendy's
on
a
much
deserved
vacation,
so
the
rest
of
the
team-
we're
all
here
and
can
answer
any
questions
that
you
have
ask
questions.
I
like
ben's
comment
in
the
chat.
We
don't
want
to
be
sad,
so
ask
questions.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
about
anything
that
our
speakers
talk
about.
You
can
ask
any
questions
related
to
elections,
redistributing
census.
The
reason
we
have
these
office
hours
is
to
be
available
and
be
a
resource
for
everyone
in
the
states.
A
So
don't
be
shy,
but
if
you
do
want
to
ask
a
question
anonymously,
you
can
directly
to
me
or
one
of
the
ncsl
people
and
we
will
read
it
without
identifying
you
so
without
further
ado.
I
think
I'm
going
to
hand
it
over
to
rob
and
deb
take
it
away.
C
Well,
thank
you.
I'm
a
huge
fan
of
ncsl
great
chance
to
have
a
chance
to
to
to
speak
with
you,
and
I
am
president
ceo,
fair
vote.
C
Deb
otis
is
our
senior
researcher
and
analyst,
who
does
a
lot
of
the
great
in
in-depth
work
that
we
do
looking
at
how
ranchers
voting
worked
in
new
york
city,
the
roots
of
lack
of
competition,
congressional
elections
and
so
on,
and
we
look
at
structural
electoral
reforms
and
I
think,
there's
nothing
more
obvious
to
talk
about
relating
to
that
right
now
than
redistricting
single-member
districts.
Multi-Member
districts.
Is
that
such
a
core
construct
for
how
we
hold
elections?
C
So
we
we
put
together
a
slide
presentation,
maybe
somewhat
ambitiously,
we'll
try
to
to
keep
the
time
and
and
I'm
going
to
start
and
then
pass
it
over
to
deb.
C
So
I'll
share
my
screen
and
see
if
this
works
as
anticipated,
and
so
we're
going
to
focus
in
particular,
if
everyone's
seen
that
screen
on
the
idea
of
fair
representation
within
the
house,
which
of
course
is
a
general
goal,
but
there's
a
specific
proposal
that
we
think
kind
of
fundamentally
would
change
how
we
achieve
that
and
take
so
much
pressure
off
of
the
way
we
draw
district
lines
and
essentially
establish
voters
as
in
control
of
our
representation,
so
it
sort
of
shifts
from
fair
maps
to
fair
votes.
Thinking
about
the
nation.
C
As
a
in
our
history,
we
have
an
old
democracy
which
is
great,
and
you
know,
constitution
that
goes
back
to
the
1700s.
One
of
the
challenges
is
that
there
weren't
really
many
electoral
systems
that
people
could
look
at.
Then
our
founders
were
really
cutting
edge
at
the
time
and
and
looking
at
all
the
best
practices
and
ideas,
but
they
were
pretty
limited
on
on
what
they
could
structurally
look
at
was
so
they
wisely
created
the
space
for
us
over
time
to
achieve
the
objectives
that
they
laid
out.
C
This
one,
a
quote
from
john
adams,
is,
is
his
suggestion
of
what
we
want
legislators
to
look
like,
and
I
think
it's
a
nice
expression
of
you
know
what
the
consent
of
the
government
really
means.
But
it's
you
know
that
that
that
portrait
of
the
people-
and
I
think
you
know
we
would
argue
single
member
districts-
is
not
the
best
vehicle
to
get
there.
I
think
it's
pretty
easy
to
believe
that
things
aren't
working
out
right
now,
as
we'd
like
them.
To
I'm
sure
members
of
congress
are
discouraged
when
they
have.
C
You
know
17
rates
of
approval
for
all
the
work
that
they're
trying
to
do,
and
we
think
it's
sort
of
tied
to
the
incentives
that
that
lead
to
certain
behaviors
and
we
try
not
to
blame
the
people
but
sort
of
look
at
look
at
why
people
seem
to
be
acting
in
certain
ways
and
how
people
see
that,
but
just
some
of
the
symptoms
of
of
things.
I
think
this
laundry
list
is.
Is
it
you
know
ones
that
we
are
also
aware
of?
But
you
know
limited
vote,
limited
voter
choices.
C
We
do
this
monopoly
politics
report
that
did
the
most
recent
edition
that
where
we
can
predict,
you
know
almost
90
percent
of
house
races
immediately
after
the
last
election,
except
in
this
cycle,
when
they're
distributing
the
the
issues
of
voters
not
being
able
to
vote
authentically
the
way
they
want,
when
more
than
two
candidates
run,
you
get
split
votes
and
non-non-representative
winners.
C
This
doom
loop
of
toxicity
that
we're
seeing
where
each
each
each
round
of
elections
seems
to
be
creating
more
fear
and
and
and
concerned
about
the
other
party,
gerrymandering
distortions
and
representation,
and
we
believe
it
is
getting
worse
sort
of
it
works
in
a
way
that
I
think
it's.
It's
really
deserves
this
conversation
that
we're
starting
to
see
so
multi-member
districts
are
actually
not
a
new
idea
at
all.
A
lot
of
people
think
they're
sort
of
baked
into
the
constitution.
C
They're,
not
a
lot
of
early
congresses
for
the
first
50
years
were
at
large
elections
at
this
state
level.
You
know
41
states,
as
recently
as
the
50s
had
at
least
some
multi-member
state
legislative
districts.
Currently,
nine
still
do
and
they're
all
winner
take
off
as
they're.
C
Currently,
using
we'll
sort
of
explain
what
winner
take
all
versus
non-winner
take
all
means,
but
they're
very
common
at
the
local
level,
in
fact
more
common
than
single
member
districts,
and
there
there
are
some
more
differences
as
far
as
having
some
non-winner
take
all
some
non-monetary
elections.
C
So
one
of
the
one
of
the
things
that's
sort
of
basically
different
about
the
multi-member
district
and
this
little
graphic
of
showing
like
six
people
who
are
in
a
single
member
district
in
louisiana
and
then
then
what
it
means
to
to
be
running
in
larger
districts
is
that
you
sort
of
can
run
as
teams.
You
can
service
teams.
You
can
represent
more
more
people.
Voters
can
have
you
know
more
opportunities
to
feel
like
their
representative
might
be
akin
to
them,
rather
than
just
having
one
there's,
obviously
a
trade-off.
C
Every
time
you
do
one
thing
versus
another,
but
multi-member
districts
have
often
been
seen
as
valuable.
For
that
reason,
there's
been
some
interesting
impacts
as
far
as
women
winning
more
with
multi-member
districts
oops.
I
realize
I'm
I'm
advancing
the
slide
without
meaning
to
sorry
about
that
and
I
think
I'll
hold
on
this
slide
for
a
second
that.
C
Women
have
historically
done
significantly
better
multi-member
districts.
You
know
it's
not
a
always
the
case
situation,
but
again
when,
when
when
people
are
running
those
teams
versus
not
in
and
and
you
still
see
that
in
state
legislatures
now,
we
often
think
about
multi-member
districts
through
the
lens
of
voting
rights
cases
and
how
there
could
be
kind
of
a
tyranny
of
the
majority
right.
C
So
if
there's
a
55
majority
in
a
certain
area,
a
town
or
a
county,
and
and
they
have
the
power
to
elect
every
seat
in
an
at-large
election
that
can
deprive
other
people
have
a
chance
to
win
seats.
But
there
are
times
when
that
racial
coloration
isn't
as
intense
and
then
you
actually
have
have
a
history
of
some
very
interesting
cross-racial
coalitions
and
people
kind
of
electorally,
using
the
fact
that
they
can
run
as
teams
or
to
win
his
teams.
C
The
one
interesting
history
of
the
state
legislative
level
that
we
have
was
different
was
illinois
had
cumulative
voting
in
multi-member
districts
up
until
18,
but
from
1870
to
1980
came
out
of
the
civil
war.
They
wanted
to
have
both
parties
being
able
to
to
win
seats
together
across
the
state
and
not
be
polarized
like
the
country
just
had
been,
and
it
really
worked
that
way.
So
they
have
republicans
democrats
representing
almost
every
district
and
the
difference
was
rather
than
needing
50
to
win
in
a
multi-member
district.
C
It
took
about
a
quarter
of
the
vote
to
win
just
that
change
kind
of
opened
up
representation
in
quite
interesting
way
when
they
changed
to
a
smaller
house,
they
in
1980
they
they
decided
to
go
to
single
member
districts
and
a
lot
of
people
feel
that
that
changed.
What
was
what
has
been
a
problem
for
the
state,
so
we
touched
on
some
of
those
benefits
about
how
it's
different.
C
I
I
would
say
that
when
you
get
into
the
fair
representation
act
proposal,
I
think
we
can
go
deeper
in
into
what
some
of
those
benefits
are
just
on
the
the
one
particular
piece
of
of
the
ballot.
I'm
sure
a
lot
of
you
have
have
heard
about
rancho's
voting,
something
that
fair
vote
has
worked
on
throughout
its
history,
along
with
making
this
case
for
changing
single
member
districts.
But
the
ballot
changes,
so
you
don't
just
tick
one
person.
C
You
were
able
to
express
your
preferences
first
story,
second
choice
and
third
choice
in
that
very
act
of
saying.
Well,
who
do
I
want
as
my
backup
choice
in
case
my
first
choice
can't
win
I'll,
go
down
to
a
third
choice.
It's
up
to
the
voter.
They
don't
have
to
do
rankings,
but
they
can
and
that
changes
the
conversation
with
candidates,
because
now
they
know,
even
if
I
can't
get
a
first
choice
from
that
person,
I
might
be
able
to
get
a
second
choice
and
that
might
hopefully
help
me
win
and
that
change
really.
C
We've
we've
seen
this
play
out
again
and
again
now
encourages
candidates
to
talk
with
more
voters.
It's
something
that
we're
seeing
23
cities
in
utah
signed
up
to
use
ranchers
voting.
This
november
was
used
in
new
york
city
for
all
of
its
big
primaries,
including
the
mayoral
race,
and
it
was
used
by
the
virginia
republicans
to
do
all
their
big
nominations
this
past
spring,
and
I
think
you
I
can
see
some
of
the
values
that
we
think
it
does.
C
When
you
add
in
the
multi-winner
aspect,
that's
when
you
start
to
really
change
the
incentives
in
different
ways
for
not
only
how
those
voters
behave,
but
what
kind
of
representation
they
have
the
power
to
achieve
and
and
and
the
core
difference
again
is
like
going
from
meeting
50
to
wins,
with
25
to
20
and
so
on.
I'm
going
to
let
deb.
I
think
this
next
slide
goes
into
her
presentation
and
I'll.
C
D
All
right,
so
this
is
an
image
of
our
proposal
for
the
u.s
house
of
representatives.
We'll
talk
a
little
bit
more
today
as
well
about
implementing
this
on
a
state
by
state
level,
but
I
do
want
to
initially
look
at
this
from
the
u.s
level.
So
fair
vote
right
now
is
working
for
a
piece
of
legislation
called
the
fair
representation
act.
You
will
see
at
the
bottom
of
the
slide
the
bill
number
in
the
current
congress,
and
so
as
rob
described.
D
D
I
lived
in
massachusetts
for
about
10
years,
there's
a
good
reason
that
they
are
the
example
that
we
picked
for
this
slide.
First,
you'll
notice
in
the
top
left.
That
is
massachusetts
as
it
is
now
with
nine
single
winner
districts
bottom
right
massachusetts,
as
we
think
it
should
be.
This
is
one
example
of
how
it
might
look
under
fair
representation
voting
and
so
in
and
the
former
massachusetts
at
top
top
left
you'll
notice.
All
of
these
members
are
from
the
same
party.
These
are
they're
all
blue
they're.
D
All
democrats,
we
do
think
of
massachusetts
as
a
pretty
blue
state,
but
when
it
comes
down
to
it,
about
40
percent
of
the
voters
are
supporting
the
other
party
and
they
end
up
with
zero
representation.
So
we
have
a
a
one-party
delegation
here
and
we
see
similar
things
for
states
on
the
other
side
of
the
aisle,
of
course,
and
so
that's
one
issue
here,
but
a
much
bigger
issue
is
that
gerrymandering
cannot
solve
it.
Single
member
districts
cannot
fix
the
problem
in
massachusetts.
D
We
partner
with
an
organization
called
mgggg
out
of
tufts
university
that
they
recently
did
a
report
trying
to
draw
districts.
That
would
be
fair
to
republicans
in
massachusetts.
They
found
out
that
it
was
not
possible.
Massachusetts
does
not
have
the
same
geographic
sorting
between
the
parties
that
you
see
in
some
locations,
so
even
if
the
district
drawers
had
the
best
intention
to
get
representation
that
was
about
equal
to
voter
preferences
in
this
state
single
winner
districts
just
cannot
get
you
there.
So
that's
why
we
need
a
different
solution.
D
This
can
help
us
escape
from
the
battles
during
the
district
drawing
cycle
and
will
help
voters
voices
matter
more.
So
next
slide,
please,
as
we
go
through
this,
please
keep
the
questions
coming.
Rob
might
be
able
to
attack
some
of
those
in
the
chat
for
you
and
then
we'll
leave
time
to
both
answer
them
at
the
end,
of
course,
so
I'm
going
to
go
through
an
example
of
how
ballots
are
counted
in
multi-winner,
ranked
choice.
D
Voting,
I
suspect
some
folks
here
are
familiar
with
the
single
winner
form,
the
form
that
new
york
city
just
used,
as
well
as
the
state
of
maine
and
dozens
of
other
cities,
counties
and
states
around
the
country.
D
But
this
today
is
the
advanced
rcv
course,
because
we're
talking
about
the
multi-winner
version,
which
is
also
known
as
proportional,
ranked
choice
voting.
So
you
may
know
in
single
winner
ranked
choice
voting.
We
would
end
up
eliminating
last
place
candidates
until
you
get
a
majority
winner.
If
we're
electing
multiple
winners,
we
don't
need
a
majority,
we
just
need
a
certain
threshold.
D
So
in
this
example,
this
is
a
district.
That's
going
to
elect
three
winners,
so
the
threshold
is
any
any
candidate
who
gets
over
25
of
the
vote,
wins
a
seat,
and
so
that
threshold
varies
based
on
how
many
folks
are
being
elected
in
a
district.
This
is
a
three
winner
example.
So,
first
we
counted
up
just
everyone's
first
choice
votes
and
we
see
somebody
is
winning
already
light.
Blue
gets
one
of
these
three
seats.
They
have
crossed
the
threshold
congrats
light
blue,
but
they
have
more
votes
than
they
need.
D
Imagine
if
you
were
a
light
blue
voter,
you
cast
your
vote
for
your
favorite
candidate.
Then
you
saw
this
result.
You
would
say:
oh
no
light
blue
could
have
won
without
my
help.
Maybe
I
should
have
voted
for
someone
else
to
try
to
you
know,
dilute
the
the
strength
and
maybe
get
two
of
my
favorite
candidates
in
well.
That's
a
problem
in
our
old
system.
Ranked
choice.
Voting
is
going
to
solve
that
problem.
D
Votes,
excess
votes
beyond
what
a
candidate
needs
are
going
to
get
transferred
to
those
people's
second
choices.
This
is
called
a
single
transferable
vote
method.
Everyone
gets
one
vote,
but
if
your
first
choice
doesn't
need
your
vote
to
win
your
vote,
stays
in
play
and
can
help
your
next
choice.
So
in
round
two,
we
see
that
those
extra
blue
votes
have
transferred
this
blue
faction.
There
are
a
lot,
a
lot
of
voters.
There
may
be
enough
that
they
deserve
two
seats
on
this
council,
so
we're
going
to
listen
to
all
of
those
blue
voters.
D
So
this
was
round
two
I'm
looking
for
three
winners
to
cross
that
threshold.
I
don't
have
any
more
winners,
yet
we
just
have
that
first
one.
So,
let's
head
on
to
round
three
we're
going
to
eliminate
that
last
place
candidate,
this
magenta
transfer
those
ballots
to
those
people's
next
choice.
We
kept
their
first
choice
in
play
for
as
long
as
we
could,
but
ultimately
that
person
didn't
get
enough
support,
but
those
voters
can
support
their
next
choice
candidate,
so
those
votes
are
transferred,
and
now
we
have
three
winners
at
or
above
the
threshold.
D
D
Not
seeing
immediate
questions,
we
could
move
on
to
a
little
a
quick
case,
study.
C
And
then
maybe
I'll
just
add,
leading
into
your
case
study
is.
This
is
used
quite
a
number
of
countries.
It's
used
by
every
single
voter
in
one
of
their
governmental
elections,
sometimes
the
biggest
election
in
australia,
ireland,
scotland,
northern
ireland,
malta,
which
has
the
highest
voter
turnout
in
the
world
when
without
compulsory
voting
and
several
cities
in
the
u.s.
As
I'm
about
to
talk
about
one
of
them.
D
That
number
is
based
on
the
number
of
seats
to
be
elected,
so
we're
electing
three
seats,
and
so
the
threshold
is
set
such
that
as
soon
as
three
candidates
have
crossed
the
threshold.
A
fourth
candidate
cannot,
then,
be
then
get
that
same
number
of
votes
to
be
elected.
It's
like
if
you're
electing
just
one
candidate,
you
need
more
than
half
the
votes.
D
D
All
right,
well
I'd
love
to
quickly
talk
about
cambridge
massachusetts.
Then
they
use
this
at
the
municipal
level.
They
have
been
doing
it
since
the
1940s,
so
they
are
our
longest
continuous
use
case
of
proportional
ranked
choice.
Voting
in
the
u.s
and
we've
seen
some
really
strong
results
there.
One
of
the
things
that
is
great
to
see
as
a
researcher
for
ranked
choice
voting,
I
love
being
able
to
dig
into
the
data
of
where
this
has
been
used
and
how
it
is
working
in
practice.
D
95
of
voters
see
one
of
their
top
three
choices.
Elected,
and
that
is
great
for
representation,
almost
everyone
is
getting
at
least
one
of
their
top
choices.
We
also
see
a
similar
portion
of
voters
who
are
choosing
to
engage
with
this
ranked
ballot
by
ranking
multiple
candidates.
When,
given
the
option,
voters
tend
to
want
to
do
that,
they
are
excited
to
express
multiple
preferences.
D
And,
lastly,
I
included
this
map
here,
because
neighborhood
representation
is
a
is
a
goal
that
sometimes
people
bring
up
when
they
want
to
draw
districts,
but
I
want
to
show
that
it
can
happen
even
without
even
when
you're
not
drawing
districts.
So
cambridge
does
not
draw
districts
because
they
elect
at
large
using
this
form
of
proportional
ranked
choice
voting.
D
But
this
map
shows
the
first,
the
by
ward,
the
first
choices
of
folks
in
that
ward,
as
well
as
the
home
addresses
of
the
winners
from
that
year
and,
as
you
can
see,
the
winners
are
spread
out
throughout
the
city
and
we
see
first,
choices
for
individual
candidates
tend
to
cluster
in
geographic
areas,
although
of
course
we
see
some
moving
around,
and
so
these
are
factions
of
voters
that
are
in
the
same
neighborhood
or
in
the
same
community
tends
to
express
similar
preferences
and
they
get
a
seat.
D
So
that's
just
a
quick
study
on
how
it's
working
on
in
cambridge
massachusetts.
We're
also
we're
very
interested
in
seeing
this
happen
in
state
legislatures.
We
think
state
legislative
bodies
is
a
great
opportunity
for
this
form
of
proportional
representation
and
we
at
fair
vote.
One
of
our
big
priorities
over
the
next
few
years
is
trying
to
implement
this
federally.
One
of
my
favorite
aspects
is
reducing
the
impact
of
gerrymandering,
one
we're
drawing
fewer
lines,
so
that
helps
two
the
lines
just
don't
matter.
D
As
much
the
voters,
voices
are
heard
because
of
this
ranked
choice
voting,
and
so
it's
much
less
impactful
for
a
district
drawer
to
try
to
split
up
a
community.
It
does
not
have
the
same
impact
with
multi-winner
districts
as
it
would
in
single
winner,
so
our
legislation
proposes
independent
redistricting
commissions,
but
the
impact
of
even
drawing
those
lines
in
the
first
place
is
drastically
reduced.
So
we
can
avoid
this.
D
These
big
battles
we
have
every
ten
years,
we've
also
seen
multi-member
districts
and
ranked
choice,
voting
both
lead
to
improved
representation
for
women
and
for
people
of
color,
the
number
of
districts
in
the
u.s
which,
in
which
people
of
color,
would
have
the
power
to
elect
a
candidate
of
their
choice,
increases
by
about
50
percent.
D
If
we
implement
ranks
the
fair
representation
act,
and
so
we're
excited
to
see
those
outcomes
for
people
of
color
and
for
women
getting
our
elected
bodies
to
look
more
like
the
voters
and
lastly,
shared
representation
within
districts
can
create
good
governance
incentives,
and
so
I
think
those
are
some
key
facts.
This
is
the
end
of
our
prepared
presentation,
but
rob,
and
I
would
love
to
take
questions
rob.
Do
you
have
anything
else
to
add
before
we
open
it
up.
C
I
think
we
touched
on
it.
Well,
we
raced
through
it.
Let
me
stop
sharing,
so
we
can
get
back.
Oh,
my
goodness,
this
is
my
music
here.
C
There
we
go
where,
where
are
we
I
lost?
Is
somebody
able
to
seize
it
from
ncsl
and
and
and
and
take
back
control
or
do
I
need
to
somehow
give
it
back
to
you.
A
That
was
a
good
question.
I
think
you
need
to.
A
A
C
Oh
I'll
start
and
def,
please
add
to
it.
I
think,
let
me
sort
of
break
it
down
into
different
components,
so
one
is
with
multi-member
districts.
Actually,
who
represents?
You
will
in
fact
become
more
stable
right.
You
will
be
you
know,
of
course
it
is
with
over
a
course
of
a
decade,
but
but
the
district
lines
will
will
will
be
less
likely
to
move
you
into
a
new
district.
C
You
know
I
in
maryland
have
have
three
delegates
in
the
house
of
delegates
and
some
people
say:
oh
you
know
who
do
you
know
how
to
contact
it's
like?
Well,
I
have
three
it's
kind
of
fun.
You
know
right
now
I
could
you
know
I
can
talk
to
one
be
like
that
person
is
really
good
on
that
kind
of
issue
and
another
on
another,
but
there's
sort
of
a
new
relationship
with
constituents.
That's
actually
very
similar
to
the
us
senate.
C
If
people
are
engaging
with
their
two
senators
or
in
you
know
a
number
of
state
legislators,
the
ballot
itself,
we
we
now
have
a
lot
of
introductions
of
ranchos
voting.
You
know
it's
now
used
in
over
50
jurisdictions
in
the
united
states
right
now
again
being
introduced
to
more
than
20
cities
in
utah
that
hadn't
used
it
before
two
that
had
new
york
city,
just
just
you
know,
used
it
for
the
first
time
and
there's
there's
getting
to
be
kind
of
a
nice
set
set
of
things
to
do.
C
You
also
have
to
work
with
the
election
officials,
so
they
are
ready
to
implement
the
system.
That's
that's
a
new
one.
You've
got
to
work
out
procedures
for
that,
and
there
are
lessons
to
learn
from
how
to
do
that
better
than
not
a
good
valid
design.
So
I
think
again,
things
that
are
being
learned
and
the
voters
really,
I
think,
find
the
rank
ballot
very
intuitive.
C
In
fact,
it
reflects
in
some
ways
how
we
think
more
than
just
being
limited
to
one
like
for
any
of
you
who
have
engaged
in
a
contest
where
there
was
more
than
one
person
that
you've
had
something
to
say
about
limiting
the
one
is
in
fact
not
as
expressive
right
and
you're
feeling
constrained
by
that.
So
I
think,
as
long
as
people
can
get
to
the
point
of
feeling
comfortable,
that
authentically
indicating
their
preferences
is
the
right
thing
to
do.
Voters
seem
to
do
that
very
very
well,
and
you
got
to
work
with
the
candidates.
C
They
can
be
the
biggest
sources
of
misinformation,
so
work
with
the
candidates
and-
and
that's
that's-
that's
a
big
head
start.
B
Sure
can
you
hear
me
on
the
audio
yeah
great?
First
of
all,
I
want
to
say
hello
to
rob
who's
an
old
friend
and
colleague.
I
have
two
questions
the
first.
This
goes
back
to
the
multi-member
district
question:
how
your
proposal
might
impact
minority
districts,
especially
if
it's
determined
that
a
certain
geographical
area
needs,
let's
say:
50
51
percent
minority
voting
age
population
would
using
a
multi-member
steam,
make
it
more
difficult
to
elect
a
minority
candidate
and
second
curious.
I
looked
at
your
map
from
massachusetts
and
just
disclaimer.
B
I
was
counseled
to
the
massachusetts
senate
when
that
map
was
created.
Question
is
have
you
created
any
other
maps
looking
at,
let's
say
the
2011
iterations
of
excuse
me,
north
carolina
or
pennsylvania,
wisconsin
michigan,
just
to
see
how
many
democrats
might
get
elected
where
they
can't
get
elected
now.
Thank
you.
C
Well-
and
I
bet
that
might
have
a
little
more
to
add
to
that
too-
but
one
great
to
see
you
jeff
and
so
one
so
really
fundamental
to
this-
is
that
we're
changing
from
a
system
where
it
takes
over
50
of
the
vote
to
be
sure
of
winning
to
one
where
it
takes
a
lower
percentage
of
the
vote
to
win
right.
So
if
it's
three
seats
like
in
those
massachusetts
districts,
you
know,
if
you
get
over
25
percent,
you
can
be
sure
of
winning.
C
If
it's
a
five-member
district,
it's
the
math
would
put
you
about
17.
Now,
if
you
apply
that
math
to
say
all
the
big
states
in
the
south,
where
there's
substantial
populations
of
of
african-americans,
but
typically
kind
of
only
one
or
two
african-american
majority
seats
possible
in
those
districts
leaving
actually
in
almost
all
those
states.
A
majority
of
african-americans
outside
of
those
districts-
and
you
just
say
in
north
carolina,
create
three
three
districts.
C
So
if
you
know
three
to
five
people,
every
african-american,
every
single
african
american
is
in
a
position
to
help
elect
a
preferred
candidate
using
that
math
of
needing
you
know,
15
to
25,
as
is
every
white
voter
as
well,
and
every
republican
voter
and
every
democratic
voter
right.
It's
the
shared
representation
potential.
C
In
fact,
if
you
look
there's
a
way
to
to
have
every
state
from
california
to
maryland
a
connected
series
of
states
where
every
single
district
would
have
the
math
potential
right,
the
power
to
elect
for
both
a
racial
minority
and
a
white
voter
in
every
single
part
of
every
one
of
those
states
which
is
different,
obviously
than
what
we
have
now
and
and
it
sort
of
liberates
it
by
by
by
putting
voters
in
charge,
which
I
think
given
where
the
supreme
court
is
on
section,
two
and
and
obviously
where
we
are
with
with
lack
of
section
five
enforcement.
C
I
think
that
this
kind
of
turning
it
over
to
the
voters,
kind
of
takes
a
lot
of
heat
out
of
the
judicial
process
and
and
and
the
contention
not
out
of
districting
and
in
fact,
creates
a
lot
of
new
opportunities
just
to
not
be
so
pollyannish.
That
it's
just
perfect
is
that
the
the
the
power
to
elect
comes
with
needing
to
vote
right.
People
need
to
participate,
and
so
the
power
to
elect
is
there
in
sheer
shares
of
the
population
or
of
eligible
voters.
C
But
of
course,
voters
need
to
be
participating
and
candidates
need
to
run,
but
assuming
that
happens-
and
that
is
an
assumption
that
you
know,
needs
to
be
carried
out.
It
is
actually
creates
real
opportunities
for
uptick
and
we
do
have
model
states.
We've
in
fact
done
a
50-state
map
that
we
we
used
in
2017
in
fact
used
a
tool
that
that
that,
without
our
touching
touching
the
buttons
or
whatever
we,
we
just
set
up
the
criteria
of
the
fair
representation
act
and
let
this
system
this
kind
of
computer
role
and
create
districts.
C
We
didn't
love
every
district,
but
we
were
letting
it
kind
of
create
districts
that
you
know
gave
an
example,
and
it
actually
produced
that
kind
of
impact
of
bigot
objects
for
for
people
of
color
being
able
to
help
elect
someone
and
kind
of
a
real
balancing
in
all
kinds
of
states,
right,
meaning
that
oklahoma
suddenly
has
opportunities
for
for
democrats
and
and
connecticut
for
republicans
and
and
so
on,
and
and
create
overall
equity
for
parts
and
representation.
A
Great,
I'm
sorry
my
mute
button
there
just
a
reminder
that
if
you
have
questions
you
can
ask
them
put
them
in
the
chat.
Thank
you
for
that
rob.
I
think
we
have
one
more
question
and
others
may
come
along
as
people
think.
If
rob
you
and
deb
want
to
share
your
email
addresses
in
the
chat.
People
could
also
follow
up
with
you
directly
if
things
are
percolating
and
they
want
to
follow
up
on
a
question.
The
other
one
is
about
kind
of
this
multi-member
districting
solution.
A
C
Great
question:
let's
first
start
with
sort
of
congress
right,
so
you
know,
25
states
have
five
or
fewer
seats
right,
so
we
already
and
we're
not
changing
the
constitution.
This
is
all
within
the
constitution.
Violence
completely
statutory
and
I'll
say
just
parenthetically
very
consistent
with
why
we
using
the
member
district.
Today
we
using
the
member
districts
today
because
congress,
the
first
time
they
did.
This-
was
in
the
1840s
they
sort
of.
They
were
looking
at
this
fracturing
of
how
people
were
electing
house
members.
C
Everyone
has
to
do
some
resolutions,
so
that
was
their
sense
of
quote,
unquote,
fairness
and
then
that
actually
expired
at
one
point
in
1920.
C
So
again,
let's
have
a
national,
fair
system,
single
member
district.
I
think
that
hasn't
worked
out
as
well
as
we
would
like,
and
I
think
if
we
want
a
national
affairs
system,
this
is
actually
a
fair
system.
Now
it
works
within
our
culture.
We
think
one.
These
are
candidate-based
systems
right.
So
it's
not
a
party-based
system,
you're,
not
voting
for
a
party
ahead
of
a
of
a
candidate.
You
you
can
rank
according
to
your
wishes.
C
I
think
a
lot
of
people
would
rank
according
to
a
party
label
in
general
elections,
but
they
don't
have
to
right.
They
could
they
could
pick
their
favorite
democrat,
followed
by
a
favorite
republican
and
and
so
on,
as
a
backup
choice
and
it,
and
it
is
consistent
with
our
values
there.
C
A
lot
of
other
countries
have
an
expectation
that,
on
the
floor
of
their
parliament,
everyone
in
that
party
will
just
always
vote
according
to
the
the
instructions
of
of
of
the
party
leadership
and
the
the
decisions
that
they've
made
in
caucus
and
and
that's
not
what
our
culture
historically
has
been
this.
C
This
allows
that
kind
of
differentiation
within
the
parties-
a
thinker
named
evol
levin
right
talks
really
well
about
this
sense
of
like
these
are
madisonian
factions
in
a
positive
sense
within
the
parties
that
can
be
different
within
our
big
tents
and
sort
of
operate
within
our
historical
norms,
of
having
parties
not
being
monochrome
or
just
sort
of
all
the
same,
but
having
people
have
their
differentiation
so
that
sort
of
candidate
base
still
respecting
geography,
but
not
letting
geography
overwhelm
voters
and
sort
of
trying
to
find
what
we
think
is
a
sweet
spot.
A
Great,
thank
you.
Thank
you
both
for
this
presentation
for
answering
these
questions
and
for
sharing
your
emails
and
email
addresses
in
the
chat
glad
to
learn
much
more
about
this
particular
topic.
So
thank
you.
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
now
to.