>> DID YOU EVER THINK THAT THE POPULAR VOTE IS A BETTER WAY TO ELECT A PRESIDENT THAN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE?

STAY TUNED AS WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT NEXT - ON IVORY TOWER.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M BARBARA FOUGHT, FROM SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY.

HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE NEWS OF THE WEEK ARE -- LISA DOLAK, FROM SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY BEN BAUGHMAN FROM GANNON UNIVERSITY AND LUKE PERRY FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

LET'S START TONIGHT IN NEW YORK STATE.

TALK ABOUT CHILD POVERTY.

AN ALBANY-AREA REPUBLICAN, SENATOR JAKE ASHBY, SAYS THE STATE SHOULD EXPAND THE CHILD TAX CREDIT TO GIVE $1000 TO PARENTS OF NEWBORNS.

THEY'D GET THE MONEY EVEN IF THEY DON'T OWE THAT MUCH IN TAXES.

LISA, THIS IS A GOOD IDEA?

>> YOU KNOW, I'M KIND OF MEH ON THIS.

YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY HELPING CHILD POVERTY, ALLEVIATE CHILD POVERTY IS A VERY LAUDABLE GOAL.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS WOULD MAKE A MEANINGFUL IMPACT OR NOT.

>> IT SEEMS LIKE THE ONE DURING THE PANDEMIC WAS REALLY HELPFUL.

>> AND I MEAN THERE ARE OTHER CHILD TAX CREDITS AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

A FEDERAL CHILD TAX CREDIT.

YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF MONEY-- IT ALSO ISN'T TARGETED TO CHILD POVERTY, RIGHT?

EVERYBODY WOULD GET IT.

SO RICH PEOPLE WHO HAVE A CHILD WOULD GET THIS MONEY.

I WONDER ALSO ABOUT ANOTHER MOTIVATION FOR IT I'VE SEEN IS THAT IT WOULD ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO HAVE CHILDREN.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT'S TRUE OR NOT.

AND WHILE IT'S SAID OFTEN THAT AFFORDABILITY OF LIFE IS A REASON WHY PEOPLE ARE HAVING FEWER CHILDREN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SURVEYS, PEOPLE ARE SAYING OTHER REASONS, RIGHT?

THEY'RE SAYING IT'S BECAUSE THERE IS AN INCREASED FOCUS ON INDIVIDUALISM AND FREEDOM AND PEOPLE ARE FINDING PARTNERS LATE IN LIFE AND, YOU KNOW, I SAW A STUDY, THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO.

THEY'RE FOCUSED ON OTHER THINGS.

I DON'T FOE ABOUT THAT MOTIVATION EITHER.

AND OF COURSE THERE IS ALWAYS THE QUESTION WHETHER THIS PRIORITY VERSUS OTHER PRIORITIES AND IT'S AFFORDABILITY.

>> I WAS SURPRISED TO KNOW THERE ARE 200,000 BABIES BORN IN NEW YORK STATE EVERY YEAR.

IS THAT TOO HIGH A PRICE.

>> IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU ARE TAKING IT AWAY FROM.

IT'S LESS THAN A PERCENT OF THE STATE BUDGET BUT IT'S A ONE-TIME.

IT'S A ONE-TIME ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS IS A LOT OF MONEY BUT SO IS HAVING A BABY.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW SUSTAINABLE IT IS, HOW HELPFUL IT IS.

I JUST FEEL LIKE THERE COULD BE OTHER WAYS TO HELP FAMILIES IN A MORE SUSTAINABLE WAY.

NOW THE POTENTIAL LONG-TERM BENEFIT OF HELPING SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, A YOUNG FAMILY UP FRONT, COULD BE OFF SETTING THAN HAVING THIS LUMMING MEDICAL BILL THAT CONTINUES TO GROW.

BUT I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW IMPACTFUL IT IS FOR THE AMOUNT OF MONEY.

>> I'M NOT A MEH.

I'M A HECK YEAH THIS IS THE CLEAREST, SIMPLEST MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO CUT CHILD POVERTY.

WEAVER SEEN THAT IN THE-- WE'VE SEEN IT IN THE STATES THAT HAVE DONE IT AND IN COUNTRIES.

THE QUESTION IS NOT IF WE SHOULD DO IT.

IT'S FOR HOW MUCH AND FOR HOW LONG.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ONE-TIME PAYMENTS AT BIRTH.

FROM 0-6 IS WHEN YOU CAN HAVE THE GREATEST FINANCIAL IMPACT IN ALLEVIATING POVERTY WITH THESE TYPES OF POVERTY.

MY QUESTION IS HOW MUCH SHOULD IT BE AND HOW LONG WOULD IT LAST.

I WOULD DO IT FROM 0-6 ON AN ANNUAL BASIS BECAUSE IT WILL CUT CHILD POVERTY BY A THIRD OR A HALF.

AND IN THIS CITY, HALF THE CHILDREN ARE IN POVERTY.

IF WE CAN ELIMINATE THAT OR SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASE IT, I THINK WE HAVE THE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO DO SO.

>> LUKE, BOTH HARRIS AND TRUMP HAVE CHILD TAX CREDIT PLAN, TOO OF LIKE 5,000 OR $6,000.

WOULD YOU STILL DO IT IN THE STATE IF THAT GOES THROUGH?

OR MAYBE THAT'S NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH?

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

I THINK IT'S UNCERTAIN AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

IT'S CAMPAIGN SEASON.

PEOPLE ARE PROPOSING THINGS.

DIVIDED GOVERNMENT IS THE NORM.

EVEN IF DEMOCRATS WANT TO, REPUBLICANS MAY NOT.

REPUBLICANS LIKE MITT ROMNEY HAVE BEEN IN FAVOR OF EXPANDING THE TAX CREDIT FOR THIS REASON.

HE COMES FROM THE STATE OF UTAH NAT HAS MORE BABIES THAN ANYBODY ELSE AND THEY KNOW IT'S A GREAT WAY TO ALLEVIATE POVERTY.

I WOULD SAY THE STATES NEED TO DO WHAT THEY CAN AT THIS POINT AND IF FEDERAL POLICY CHANGES, STATE POLICY COULD ALWAYS CHANGE IF NEEDED.

>> TO JUMP ON THAT, THIS ISN'T LIKE A THING THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE NOT DONE.

UNDER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION THEY DID SIMILAR INITIATIVES BUT I AGREE WITH LUKE THAT WE LOOK AT IT MORE LONG-TERM THAN A ONE OFF.

>> AND THERE ALREADY IS A STATE CHILD TAX CREDIT, RIGHT, THAT'S ANNUAL.

IT'S $330, IT'S NOT A LOT OF MONEY, BUT IT'S NOT LIKE NEW YORK DOESN'T ALREADY DO AN AN ANNUAL TAX CREDIT.

>> GOING BACK TO THE REPUBLICANS, I THOUGHT IT WAS STRANGE A REPUBLICAN PROPOSED THIS AND YOU ARE SAYING YOU DIDN'T KNOW ROME ANY PROPOSED THIS.

IS THIS NOT IN LINE WITH TRADITIONAL REPUBLICAN THINKING?

OR AM I WRONG ON THAT?

>> IT DOESN'T.

ALTHOUGH THERE IS A NOTION OF ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO CENTER BABIES WHICH IS ONE REASON WHY I MENTIONED THAT.

THAT HAS SORT OF A REPUBLICAN IDEA.

>> YOUR CONCERN ABOUT GIVING IT TO EVERYBODY IS A VALID ONE.

POLICY ANALYSTS THAT LOOK AT WELFARE POLICY HAVE MOVED MORE IN THAT DIRECTION BECAUSE IT'S EASIER TO BUILD SUPPORT IF YOU ARE GIVING IT TO EVERYBODY AND BEYOND THAT, IT ALSO ELIMINATES THIS DESERVING VERSUS UNDESERVING DEBATE THAT OFTEN COMES ABOUT.

SO, YES, IT'S NOT OPTIMAL BUT I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THAT'S THE POLICY MOVE HERE.

>> THEY ENCOURAGE GROWING FAMILIES SPOT ON; ALONG WITH THE SMALLER GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS THE TRADITIONAL REPUBLICAN FRONT THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.

>> LET ME MOVE TO US OUR SECOND TOPIC.

THIS WEEK NEBRASKA REPUBLICANS TRIED TO CHANGE THE WAY THEIR ELECTORAL VOTES ARE DISTRIBUTED.

ELECTORAL VOTES ARE DISTRIBUTED THAT RENEWED DISCUSSION OF WHETHER THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS THE BEST WAY TO ELECT A PRESIDENT.

OVER RECENT YEARS NEW YORK AND 17 STATES HAVE VOTED TO SUPPORT THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE PLAN.

THIS MEANS THEY PLEDGE TO GIVE ALL THEIR ELECTORAL VOTES TO THE CANDIDATE WHO WINS THE POPULAR VOTE NATIONWIDE, REGARDLESS OF WHO WON THEIR STATE.

BUT THIS COMPACT CAN ONLY GO INTO EFFECT IF MORE STATES AGREE.

LUKE, I'M REALLY INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THIS PLAN.

>> THE ELECTORAL IS NOT THE BEST WAY TO ELECT A PRESIDENT.

I THINK MOST AMERICANS REALIZE THAT.

THE CHALLENGE IS TO DO AWAY WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE-- NOT THE EASIEST BUT THE MOST DIRECT WAY IS TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION WHICH AS LISA KNOWS IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DO.

SO THIS LEADS TO OTHER EFFORTS, LIKE THIS NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE COMPACT WHERE STATES ARE TRYING TO TAKE MATTERS IN THEIR OWN HANDS SO TO SPEAK AND SAY IF WE CAN RALLY IT TOGETHER ENOUGH STATES THAT TOTAL 270 ELECTORAL VOTES TO ALL AGREE THAT THEY WILL CAST ALL THEIR ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES TO THE PERSON WHO WINS THE POPULAR VOTE, THEN THE POPULAR VOTE WILL EVENTUALLY DETERMINE WHO BECOMES PRESIDENT.

SO DO I THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA?

I THINK IT'S BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE.

I'M NOT SURE WE ARE GOING TO GET ENOUGH STATES TO SIGN ON.

INTERESTINGLY IN NEW YORK, SENATOR JOE GRIFFO FROM THE MOHAWK VALLEY IS ONE OF THE BIG PROPONENTS OF THIS TALKING TO ME ABOUT IT 10 YEARS AGO AND WAS SUPER EXCITED.

WHY?

BECAUSE IF YOU LIVE IN NEW YORK AND YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN, YOU FEEL LIKE YOUR VOTE DOESN'T MATTER.

SO I-- IT DOES HAVE SOME BIPARTISAN APPEAL WHICH A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WOULD NOT.

BUT THEN I DO WORRY IT'S A COMPACT.

STATES JOIN, WHAT IF STATES LEAVE?

THEN YOU DIP BELOW 270, THAT UNCERTAINTY MAKES ME A LITTLE NERVOUS.

>> YEAH, FOR SURE.

AND I DO-- IT IS INTERESTING, THE BIPARTISAN ASPECT OF THIS IS KIND OF INTERESTING AND I CAN SEE SUPPORT CHANGING, DEPENDING ON WHICH DIRECTION PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS-- WHICH PARTY THEY TEND TO BE FAVORING OVER TIME AND YOU CAN IMAGINE A STATE PULLING OUT AT THE LAST MINUTE, RIGHT?

>> SO, IN THEORY IT SOUNDS GOOD TO NEW YORK, BUT OUR STATE LEGISLATORS REALLY GOING TO BE COMFORTABLE IF A REPUBLICAN WINS THE REPUBLICAN VOTE.

THAT'S WHY I THINK THERE WILL BE BUYERS REMORSE.

>> SOUNDS LIKE 1877 TO ME.

THE PROBLEM WITH THIS IS ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1, CLAUSE 3 THAT TALKS ABOUT ULTIMATELY 34 STATES OF HAVING TO COME TOGETHER WITH A STATE LEGISLATURE TO SAY THAT THEY WANT A CONVENTION AND THEN 38 STATES OF THOSE GOING AND SAYING THAT THEY WANT TO RATIFY THE CONSTITUTION.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY ONLY NEED THESE FEW AMOUNT OF STATES OTHER THAN IT ADDS UP TO THE 270 ELECTORAL VOTES.

>> RIGHT.

SO THEY'RE NOT AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION.

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ABOUT THAT.

THE IDEA IS THAT STATES DO HAVE THE POWER TO ALLOCATE THEIR ELECTORAL VOTES HOW THEY CHOOSE.

AND THAT'S WHERE IT COMES IN.

EACH STATE IS PASSING THEIR OWN LAWS THAT, IF THEY GET ENOUGH STATES, THAT IT WILL TRIGGER-- THEY WILL CAST ALL THEIR ELECTORAL VOTES TO THE PERSON WHO WINS THE POPULAR VOTE.

>> ISN'T THAT HOW IT USUALLY WORKS THOUGH WHEN-- >> THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM IS THAT IT IS A COMPACT.

IF EACH STATE WAS ACTING ON ITS OWN, THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT BUT IT'S PURSUANT TO THE COMPACT AND THE COMPACT CLAUSE OF ARTICLE 1 SAYS THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS IS REQUIRED FOR ADMINISTRATE COMPACTS-- CENTERSTATE COMPACTS.

AND IT IS CERTAINLY TRUE WHEN INTERSTATE COMPACT WOULD REVERSE THE BALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE GOVERNMENTS OR THE HORIZONTAL POWER AMONG THE STATES.

SO THE FIRST ARGUMENT-- LOOK, THIS CONSTITUTIONALITY HERE, IF THIS WERE LITIGATED, IT WOULD BE LIKE THE CASE OF THE CENTURY.

>> YOU ARE EXCITED.

>> I MEAN, YES.

THERE ARE SO MANY-- I MEAN-- AND THEY'RE MURKY BECAUSE THIS DOESN'T GET LITIGATED THAT MUCH, RIGHT?

AND SO BUT UNDER THE COMPACT CLAUSE, THE VERTICAL BALANCE OF POWER, THE ARGUMENT GOES, WOULD BE IMPACTED BECAUSE YOU KNOW, STATES POWER WOULD INCREASE AT THE COST OF THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; NAMELY THAT THIS WOULD ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY OF CONTINGENT ELECTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

THAT'S THE ARGUMENT.

THE COUNTERARGUMENT IS THAT CONGRESS' CONSENT WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED IN THIS CASE BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO REGULATE THE METHOD OR THE MODE BY WHICH STATES ALLOCATE THEIR ELECTORS.

THE COUNTERARGUMENT TO THAT IS THAT NO, NO, NO, CONGRESS' POWER UNDER THE COMPACT CLAUSE IS PLENARY.

>> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

>> IT'S ABSOLUTE.

THEY WOULD ALWAYS HAVE TO APPROVE A COMPACT.

THE SECOND-- THE HORIZONTAL BALANCE OF POWER ARGUMENT IS INTERESTING BECAUSE IT IS THAT THE BALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN THE STATES WITH RESPECT TO ELECTING THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE ALT ALTERED, WHICH OF COURSE IS THE POINT OF COMPACT, TO INCREASE THE POWER OF SOME STATES, DIMINISH THE POWER OF OTHER STATES.

THE CONTRARY ARGUMENT IS THAT THE NON-COMPACTING STATES WOULD STILL HAVE THEIR POWER, THE POWER THEY HAVE NOW TO ALLOCATE THEIR ELECTORS.

THEY'RE NOT LOSING ANYTHING.

THAT'S JUST A PART OF THE ARGUMENT UNDER THE COMPACT CLAUSE.

THERE ARE ARGUMENTS UNDER THE PRESIDENT ELECTOR CLAUSE AND EVEN ARGUMENT, NOT AS INTERESTING, OR POWERFUL, AS COMPELLING UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE/VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

SO... >> WHO KNOWS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.

>> WHO KNOWS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS WITH THIS COURT WHERE IT WOULD COME DOWN?

>> YEAH, I CAN'T IMAGINE THIS COURT UPHOLDING THIS.

AND THIS WOULD BE ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE THE COURTS WOULD BE INCONSISTENT, RIGHT, THE CONSERVE CONSERVATIVES WHO TALK A LOT ABOUT STATES RIGHTS, FEDERALISM, BUT THERE ARE NUMEROUS-- MY STUDENTS AND I TALK ABOUT THIS ALL THE TIME.

WE ARE CONSTANTLY TALKING ABOUT HOW, YOU KNOW, THE COURT ISN'T-- THESE PEOPLE ON THE COURT ARE NOT ALWAYS CONSISTENT IN THIS REGARD.

FEDERALISM IS WHAT THEY SCREAM ABOUT UNTIL THEY DON'T.

ANYWAY, I THINK INTERSTATE COMPACTS GENERALLY ARE FASCINATING.

SOME OF THEM ARE NOT INTERESTING, ALLOCATING WATER RIGHTS BETWEEN TWO STATES BUT THIS KIND OF THING WOULD BE INTERESTING.

>> LUKE, WHAT ABOUT WHAT NEBRASKA AND MAINE HAVE ABOUT WHERE THE VOTES GO BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.

WOULD THAT BE A BETTER PLAN THAN WINNER TAKE ALL?

>> IT WOULD BE BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW.

THE BEST WAY TO DO THIS WOULD BE TO HAVE A COMPACT OR SOMETHING NOT AS LEGALLY FRAUGHT WHERE STATES ALLOCATE THEIR ELECTORAL VOTES PROPORTIONATELY.

THAT'S THE ISSUE.

THAT'S WHERE YOU GET THESE FUNKY SITUATIONS OF 2016 AND 2000 AND IF IT WAS-- IN NEW YORK, IF IT WAS 60-40, THAT'S THE VOTE SHARE AND ELECTORAL VOTES ARE SPLIT 60-40 AND THAT WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM BUT STATES ARE NOT INCENTIVIZED TO BREAK UP THEIR VOTES.

>> SPEAKING OF INCENTIVES, I HAVE BEEN HEARING IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE YOU VOTE IN NEW YORK BECAUSE ONLY SEVEN STATES, PEOPLE IN SEVEN STATES DECIDE THIS ELECTION.

SO IF WE CHANGE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IN SOME WAY, WOULD THAT BE AN INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE OR TAKE IT MORE SERIOUSLY.

>> THEIR VOTE WOULD MATTER MORE.

SWING STATES MATTER.

I TELL NEW YORKERS, WE HAVE THE MOST ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES.

YOU MAY NOT FEEL LIKE YOUR VOTE MATTERS BUT WE HAVE A DISPROPORTIONATE INFLUENCE ON THE OUTCOME OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

>> NOT ONLY THAT.

THE POPULAR VOTE IS MATTERING MORE PSYCHOLOGICALLY, RIGHT?

THAT'S A COMPELLING STORY THAT CAN BE TOLD WHEN THE POPULAR IS WON BY ONE CANDIDATE AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS WON BY ANOTHER.

IN THE PSYCHE, IT MATTERS.

>> THIS YEAR IN PARTICULAR, ISN'T IT IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE VOTE FOR THE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION BECAUSE WHOEVER THE PRESIDENT IS, HE OR SHE CANNOT DO MUCH UNLESS HE OR SHE HAS CONGRESS WITH HIM OR HER, RIGHT?

>> RIGHT.

THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY CLOSE AND GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN DIVIDED SO IT'S HARD TO GET THINGS DONE BECAUSE OF THOSE TWO CIRCUMSTANCES.

>> ANY LAST THOUGHTS, BEN.

>> NO, I AGREE.

I DON'T SEE US ALL OF A SUDDEN STARTING TO LEGISLATE LIKE WE USED TO AND GET OFF OF TWITTER AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IS CURRENTSLY THE DIVISIVE IN COMPONENT RIGHT NOW.

>> IN THE PAST WEEK FIVE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN EXECUTED IN FIVE DIFFERENT STATES.

WHILE THE NUMBER OF PERSONS EXECUTED HAD BEEN GOING DOWN, RECENTLY IT'S SEEN AN UPTURN AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS CHART.

AND THE LAST BAR SHOWS THE 18 SO FAR THIS YEAR.

BEN, DO YOU THINK THIS IS A TREND?

WHAT IS CAUSING THIS OR THIS IS JUST MERE COINCIDENCE?

>> FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS, IT HAS TRENDED UP A LITTLE BIT AS FAR AS THE EXECUTIONS WHICH IS 50% FLORIDA AND TEXAS, WHICH IS NOT ANYTHING REALLY THAT NEW.

BUT SINCE 1976, THE HIGHEST WAS 98 IN 1999 AND IT TRENDED DOWN SINCE THEN UP UNTIL THE LAST TWO YEARS, WHERE IT BUMPED UP A LITTLE BIT.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, WHAT HAS BEEN TRENDING DOWN CONSISTENTLY IS THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO DEATH.

THAT COUNTS TO TREND DOWN AS WELL.

>> HOW ABOUT THE METHODS OF DOING IT?

THERE HAS BEEN SOME CONTROVERSY OVER THE DRUGS THAT ARE USED AND ALL AND A NUMBER-- I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY U.S. COMPANIES THAT MAKE THE DRUGS.

SO IS IT THAT WE CAN'T DO THEM?

OR... IS THAT ONE OF THE FACTORS?

>> THE PROBLEM IS YOU HAVE MEDICAL DOCTORS AND PEOPLE THAT HAVE AN OATH TO DO NO HARM, THAT REALLY KNOW ACTUALLY HOW TO EFFECTIVELY DO IT AND NOT HAVE PEOPLE SUFFER.

AND THEN HAVE YOU PEOPLE ACTUALLY ADMIN TERRING THAT MAY NOT HAVE THE LEVEL OF TRAINING.

SO THERE IS THAT COMPONENT THAT IS TRUE.

>> FEWER PEOPLE SENTENCED, CHEMICALS NOT ALWAYS AVAILABLE AND PEOPLE NOT WANTING TO PARTICIPATE.

>> AND YOU KNOW, THEY TRIED NEW STUFF IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS THAT THEY HADN'T TRIED ON HUMAN BEINGS YET.

AND THAT'S-- THAT WAS CONCERNING TO SAY THE LEAST.

BUT I THINK OVERALL, I THINK IT HAS BEEN A 3% OF ALL EXECUTIONS WHERE IT DIDN'T GO RIGHT THE FIRST TIME, WHICH 3% THAT'S A LOT.

>> LISA.

>> IT IS UTTERLY AND ALWAYS BARBARIC.

IT IS NEVER JUSTIFIED THE STATE SHOULD NEVER BE IN THE BUSINESS OF KILLING IN THIS REALM.

CERTAINLY THE CRIMES THAT SOME OF THESE PEOPLE ARE GUILTY OF-- AND THAT'S ALWAYS A CONCERN, TOO, ARE WE EXECUTING INNOCENT PEOPLE-- BUT WHEN THEY'RE GUILTY, THOSE CRIMES ARE ALSO BARBARIC.

BUT TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT AND YOU KNOW, I JUST THINK IT'S EVIDENCE THE CONTINUED USE OF THE DEATH PENALTY IS IMMORAL IN MY VIEW BUT IT IS ALSO EVIDENCE OF OUR FAILURE AS A SOCIETY AND A PEOPLE TO EVOLVE AND LEARN AND, YOU KNOW, THE LAST THING I'LL SAY SPEAKING OF TWITTER, YOU JUST REMINDED ME OR X. I WAS READING ABOUT PEOPLE'S ACCOUNTS.

THERE WAS A WITNESS TO LAST NIGHT'S EXECUTION WHO POSTED HER ACCOUNT OF IT, INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, REFERENCES TO WHAT APPEARED TO BE SUFFERING ON THE PART OF THE PERSON WHO WAS EXECUTED.

AND I MEAN I WAS STRUCK BY THE COMMENTS TO THAT POST, YOU KNOW, HALF OF THEM WERE I AGREE.

IT'S BARBARIC, ETC.

AND THE OTHER HALF WERE, YOU KNOW, SO WHAT?

LET THEM SUFFER.

IT WAS JUST STRIKING TO ME HOW... >> AND THOSE-- HE PROBABLY WAS NOT SUFFERING-- FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.

THERE ARE STAGES OF WHEN THE PERSON IS NO LONGER AWARE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING, THAT THEIR BODY, AS IT'S DYING GOES THROUGH STAGES THAT CAN HIT THINGS, THAT CAN LOOK LIKE THEY ARE FLAILING.

AND IT IS THE STAGE OF THE BODY SHUTTING DOWN.

SO IT DOES LOOK HORRIFIC.

>> AND WHAT COMPANY DO WE KEEP?

I MEAN WE AND BELARUS ARE THE ONLY WESTERN NATIONS THAT DO THIS, AND IT'S PRIMARILY DICTATORS AND MONARCHIES THAT HAVE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

WE THINK OF OURSELVES AS LEADERS IN DEMOCRACY BUT WE HAVEN'TY EVOLVED OR MOVED AWAY FROM THIS.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY MORE CONSERVATIVES DON'T EMBRACE THE CONSERVATIVE ARGUMENT.

MOST OF THE EXECUTIONS OCCUR IN THE SOUTH AND YOU ARE TELLING ME RURAL SOUTHERNERS TRUST THE GOVERNMENT WITH ANYTHING?

AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO TRUST THE GOVERNMENT TO EFFECTIVELY PROSECUTE PEOPLE AND KILL THEM?

LIKE WHY WOULD WE WANT TO GIVE THE POWER TO THE GOVERNMENT TO KILL CITIZENS IN THIS WAY.

IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME, PARTICULARLY WHEN WE KNEE THAT HUMAN BEINGS MAKE MISTAKES AND WE'VE MADE MISTAKES AND KILLED PEOPLE THAT WE LATER FOUND OUT THAT IS INNOCENT.

IF THAT HAPPENS ONCE THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN AND PEDS TO BE DONE AWAY WITH BECAUSE THERE IS NO RECOURSE.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE UNFAIRNESS OF THE SYSTEM.

>> IT'S ABSOLUTELY A FACT THAT THE SYSTEM IS BIASED AGAINST RACIAL MINORITIES.

THAT IS YET ANOTHER REASON.

I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO MENTION CONSERVATIVES, IT COSTS A TON OF MONEY TO PUT SOMEBODY TO DEATH, RIGHT?

TO SUPPORT THEIR APPEALS, TO, YOU KNOW, ALL THE EXTRA PROTECTIONS, LEGALLY THAT HAVE TO UNDERGO-- >> IT'S KEEPER TO CHEAP THEM IN JAIL.

>> RIGHT, BUT IF WE WENT TO THE EXTREME EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE THAT WERE ON DEATH ROW, LIKE JEFFREY DAHMER AND OTHER SERIAL KILLERS WHERE IT WAS NOT JUST HUMAN ERROR.

IT WAS NOT JUST A MISTAKE, THEY WERE MONSTROUS ACTS OVER AND OVER WITH LONG PERIODS OF TIME WHERE THEY COULD WAKE UP AND FIND GOD OR FIND A REASON NOT TO GO AND MA LIRKSLY IMPORTANT TUR AND KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING MALICIOUSLY.

IF YOU TAKE IT OUT OF, IT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO PROTECT US AND TO GIVE US JUSTICE, AND IF THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT DOING IT, THEN YOUR SOUTHERN BOYS WILL DO IT.

AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

THAT IT GOES BACK TO YOU HAVE TO HAVE A JUSTICE SYSTEM IN PLACE THAT FEELS LIKE YOU ARE GETTING DETERRENCE AND JUSTICE.

>> OKAY, WE HAVE TO LEAVE IT THERE BECAUSE IT'S TIME TO OPEN UP THE GRADEBOOK AND YOUR F LISA.

>> I'M GIVING A VERY GENTLE F TO THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF MADISON WISCONSIN FOR A DATA PROCESSING ERROR THAT CAUSED MORE THAN 2,000 DUPLICATE ABSENTEE BALLOTS TO BE SENT OUT ACROSS 10 CITY WARDS.

THE DEPUTY CLERK HAS GIVEN ASSURANCES THAT IT WILL ONLY ACCEPT ONE BALLOT FROM EVERY VOTER.

BUT IN THIS ERA OF CONCERN, CONTROVERSY, SCEPTICISM AND EVEN CONSPIRACY THEORIES RELATING TO VOTING PRACTICES AND VOTE COUNTING, THIS KIND OF THING JUST DOESN'T HELP.

>> BEN, YOUR F. >> MY F IS GOING TO BE GENTLE AS WELL.

BECAUSE I THINK HIGHLY OF THE SECRET SERVICE, BUT THEY NEED SOME LEADERSHIP TO GET THEM BACK TO WHERE THEY WERE AT.

I'VE WORKED WITH THEM MANY TIMES AND EXCEPTIONALLY TRAINED, WELL PROTECTING, BUT THE LAST FEW WEEKS OR MONTH, I SHOULD SAY, HAS BEEN VERY DIFFICULT FOR THEM.

THEY DIDN'T LEARN FROM THE SHOOTER IN THE HIGH GROUND THAT TENDS TO BE THE GIVEN THAT YOU LOOK FOR.

YOU HAD A GUY SITTING THERE FOR 12 HOURS AT A GOLF COURSE THAT TRUMP GOES TO ALL THE TIME THAT WAS NOT DETECTED UNTIL THE AGENT THAT WAS GOING AHEAD TO THE NEXT HOLE ENCOUNTERED HIM.

THEY'VE GOT TO DO BETTER.

>> OKAY.

LUKE, HOW ABOUT YOURS.

>> MY F GOES TO ONGOING ELECTION SABOTAGE BY RUSSIA, IRAN AND CHINA.

THESE ATTACKS ARE DESIGNED TO FURTHER PARTISAN DIVIDE AND DISTRUST IN DEMOCRACY AND NOW THEY'RE REACHING NEW HEIGHTS THANKS TO A.I.

>> LISA YOUR A, WHO HAS DONE SOMETHING WELL?

>> MY A GOES TO THE FT. FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES IN WILDFIRE PRONE AREAS OF THE COUNTRY THAT ARE USING INTENTIONALLY SET CONTROLLED FIRES TO BURN THE DRY GRASSES AND SMALL TREES AND OTHER VEGETATION THAT COULD OTHERWISE FUEL WILDFIRES.

THESE BENEFICIAL FIRES HAVE LONG BEEN USED BY NATIVE PEOPLES TO MANAGE RANGE LANDS AND FOR CULTURAL REASONS.

AND THEY HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO REDUCE WILDFIRE RISKS.

SURE THEY INVOLVE SOME RISK.

BUT JUST LIKE THE NUCLEAR POWER OPTION DISCUSSED ON THIS SHOW A FEW WEEKS AGO, THEY SIMPLY HAVE TO BE PART OF HOW WE ADJUST TO THE REALITIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

>> OKAY.

BEN.

>> MY A IS GOING TO GO TO NARCAN, WHICH IS A DRUG THAT HELPS OFFSET THINGS LIKE FENTANYL.

DEATHS FROM DRUGS HAVE GONE DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE LAST YEAR, 10% OVERALL.

SO WELL DONE FOR GETTING THAT IN THE HANDS OF OUR FIRST RESPONDERS.

>> LUKE YOUR A.

>> MY A GOES TO FARM AID, A LONG STANDING ANNUAL CONCERT THAT IS A BENEFIT FOR FARMERS AND LOCAL SUSTAINABLE FARMING.

THIS YEAR IT TOOK PLACE IN SARATOGA.

LAST SATURDAY.

MY WOULD I HAVE AND I WENT.

IT WAS A GREAT TIME FOR A GREAT CAUSE, MY WIFE AND I WENT.

>> GREAT CONCERT.

>> ALL AFTERNOON AND EVENING.

>> I WANT TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO BARBARA BARTHOLOMEW WHO WROTE US THIS WEEK.

PANEL, SHE NOT ONLY WATCHED THE SHOW LAST WEEK ONCE.

SHE WATCHED IT TWICE BECAUSE SHE THOUGHT IT WAS SO GOOD.

SHE SAYS THE PANEL HAD ME ON THE EDGE OF MY CHAIR AS THEY SHARED THEIR THOUGHTS AND VIEWS ON EVERY ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED.

I ALWAYS LEARN SOMETHING NEW, SHE SAYS.

AND ONE OR ANOTHER OF THE PANELISTS RAISE A POINT THAT I'VE NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT.

SO BARBARA, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR LETTER.

WE ALWAYS LIKE TO HEAR FROM PEOPLE AND IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS ABOUT THE SHOW, WRITE ANY OF THE ADDRESSES ON THE SCREEN.

REMEMBER YOU CAN WATCH US ON TV FRIDAY NIGHTS AT 8 AND SATURDAY AFTERNOONS AT 5:30.

OR STREAM US ON WCNY'S YOUTUBE PAGE OR ITS WEBSITE.

BE WELL AND GOOD NIGHT.