« 上一頁繼續 »
tion of the present system by direct election advocates will, I feel, place a substantial obstacle on the way of electoral college reform.
Direct popular election might also result in uniform qualifications for voting in all of the States. Such a federalization of voter qualifications could further erode the powers of our States and could present another obstacle in the way of the States ratifying any change.
Senate joint resolution 1 includes a runoff system between the two candidates receiving the highest popular votes when neither secures at least 40 percent of such votes. As contrasted with this costly, drawnout runoff provision, my method, Senate joint resolution 2, proposes substantially less strain to the country. Also, the runoff provision of the direct election proposal could cause disruptive changes in our dates for elections or for the counting of votes. My proposal would avoid these changes.
Mr. Chairman, I think most of us agree that something must be done to improve the process for electing our President and Vice President. It remains for us to decide on the most appropriate method to bring about this needed change. After a close comparison of our proportional plan and the direct election plan, I hope members of the Constitutional Amendments Subcommittee will agree with me that Senate Joint Resolution 2 retains the basic protection essential for our Federal system and for obtaining the board support needed for electoral college reform.
After serious consideration of this matter, the Senate acted, in less hectic times, to approve a proportional plan, the Lodge-Gossett Amendment in 1950. I hope the Senate will show the same wisdom in 1969.
Senator Bays. I appreciate very much having my colleague's views for the record. He has been interested in this question for a long while and I know he is going to make a significant contribution to our committee discussion.
I am extremely concerned about getting change. I do not completely concur in the analysis of my colleague on the relative merits of these two measures. But I think we both concur in the fact that there needs to be a change and that as men of good will we can improve our present system, and of course this is our goal.
As the debate continues, we will have a chance to discuss in full the relative merits of all of the plans and to look, point by point, at some of the issues that are raised by the Senator from North Carolina and that have been raised earlier by supporters of other plans so that we can really know how these various plans would work.
Senator ERVIN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add to my statement that my plan is somewhat between the district plan and your plan, and it is a very basis on which divergent views can compromise because it is between the two other extremes.
I would like to make it very clear I am not forbidding the chairman or any other Member of the Senate from voting for my plan.
Senator Bayh. As a matter of fact, as the Senator knows, I had introduced, in 1966, a popular vote plan that contained his runoff provision, which in my judgment has some merit. But I am concerned about getting a system which meets one fundamental criteria. Namely, the man who is elected President of the United States should have more votes than the man he is running against. It is this compelling feature of the direct election plan which no other plan can guarantee that I had recommended to me. We will have a chance to discuss that.
Senator ERVIN. I would just like to observe on that point that Alexis de Tocqueville said if our system is ever destroyed, it would be destroyed by the majority of the people of our country.
Senator Bays. I would hate to go to my constituents in Indiana and say that I do not trust a majority of them to elect a U.S. Senator, because I think that they have done pretty well in the last two elections. I think they have done pretty well in North Carolina, too, and I think if they can elect a man like my friend from North Carolina, they can elect the President of the United States.
Senator ERVIN. If all the people of the United States had the same intelligence as my constituents in North Carolina, I would not be afraid.
Senator Bayh. Speaking of constituents, we have one of yours here today and you will have an opportunity to examine his thoughts. Our first witness is Dr. Lloyd W. Bailey, an elector from the Second Congressional District. If there is no objection, a biographical summary of Dr. Lloyd Whitfield Bailey will be put in the record at this time. (Dr. Bailey's biographical sketch follows:)
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH-LLOYD WHITFIELD BAILEY
School of Aviation Medicine, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas-JanuaryMarch 1955.
Flight Surgeon, United States Air Force, 12th Air Rescue Group—1955-1957— stationed in Germany.
Married to Ann Witherspoon Lewis of San Antonio, Texas in July 1955; 3 children.
Graduate School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania-basic science course in ophthalmology-1957-1958.
Residency at Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania—1958–1960.
Member of: First Baptist Church, The John Birch Society-Former Chapter Leader, Rotary Club, Kappa Alpha Order, Phi Chi Medical Fraternity, Edgecomb-Nash County Medical Society, Medical Society of the State of North Carolina, American Medical Association, Member of Committee on Eye Care and Eye Banks of the Medical Society of the State of North Carolina, American Association of Ophthalmology, North Carolina Society of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology.
Senator Bayh. Dr. Bailey, we are looking forward to your testimony.
While Dr. Bailey is making his way up here, Senator Thurmond suggested he would like to ask some questions of Senator Ervin.
Of course we will be glad to have any questions you might care to ask, Senator Thurmond.
Senator THURMOND. Your plan, the plan you are advocating, Senator Ervin, is known as the proportional plan.
carried his State, but rather to vote for another candidate for President. In the tradition of our country, and I hope this committee, it was my opinion as chairman that inasmuch as his motives and his actions were at issue, that he indeed should have the right to present his opinion for all to hear and all to see. We may agree or disagree, but I think an indispensable part of our democratic process is the right to let everyone have his say.
Dr. Bailey, we are very anxious to hear what you have to say.
STATEMENT OF DR. LLOYD BAILEY, PRESIDENTIAL ELECTOR FROM
Dr. BAILEY. Thank you, Senator Bayh.
I would like to preface my remarks first by saying that as it became apparent that I would be coming before you I naturally did a great deal of reading about the subject and the thing that impressed me most was that you gentlemen have a tremendous job. I will go ahead now and read the statement which I prepared.
Gentlemen, I was requested to prepare a statement for you prior to the hearing which I was invited to attend. It is to me an honor to have this opportunity to present to you some thoughts which I have about the current status of the electoral college. It has been made abundantly clear to me in recent weeks that there are opposing views, but I sincerely feel that the best interest of our Republic can be served only by having reasonable men objectively consider all views which are presented with the constructive intent. With the dangers which are threatening the United States today, it is impossible for me to dissociate a discussion of the electoral college from political ambitions or obligations, it is easier for me to openly discuss this than it might be for some others.
I do not hesitate to say that I approach this as one whose first interest is the preservation of our republican form of Government and the unprecedented freedom which we have enjoyed under it. It is my opinion that this precious heritage has been bestowed upon recent generations so cheaply that far too few of us appreciate it or have even thought seriously about it. The lessons of history clearly show to us that those who do not constantly defend their freedom do not long remain free. It is my intention to firmly oppose, in any honorable way available to me, all efforts or appearances of efforts to subvert our Nation under a one-world government. With these introductory remarks, my position should be clear and my opinions and actions might be more easily understood.
I attended the district convention of the Republican Party of the Second North Carolina District on February 10, 1968, knowing that I would be proposed for nomination to the position of presidential elector. I did not seek this position, but I did not decline it. In fact, it was taken quite lightly with little thought that the Republican Party could win North Carolina. The Republican Party was, for the first time, becoming a factor in the Second Congressional District, and we were in the position of having to find people to fill every office in the party structure. No one else was proposed for presidential elector, so I was nominated. This was a number of months before we even
knew who the presidential nominees would be. There was no discussion of party loyalty, there was no pledge.
Senator ERVIN. I might interject to say I was elected to the Senate in 1954 under those circumstances. Nobody else would run and I think it is the most pleasant way to run for political office.
Senator Bayu. If our witness would yield ? I envy both of them for having that experience.
Dr. BAILEY. There was no pledge and there was no commitment made to any candidate. In the ensuing campaign I preferred Senator Thurmond or Governor Reagan to President Nixon. After the national conventions were held, I supported Governor Wallace, and I voted for him in the general election. I, along with many, was surprised that the Republican Party won in North Carolina. As an example of how lightly the position of Republican elector was taken, I had even forgotten that I was the elector until I was reminded of it by Dr. Stroud, the Second District Republican chairman, shortly before the general election. I did not think much more about being an elector until President Nixon began making appointments 2 weeks or so before the scheduled meeting of the electoral college. The names of men whose records I am familiar with began appearing in the news as appointees to high advisory positions for the executive branch of our Government; that forced me to realize that we are not going to get the changes in policy which we need and the electorate has so clearly shown that it wants.
One of these men, Mr. Robert D. Murphy, was presented by the press as being one who believes in taking a no-nonsense stand in the face of Communist threats." The record shows that in Lebanon and in the Dominican Republic, Communist regimes rose to power shortly after his presence in those countries. As President Roosevelt's personal envoy in Algeria, he told the Algerian Nationalists in 1942 that the end of colonialism was an American goal. Now, they have communism. This is not to say that he is responsible for these occurrences, but it certainly doesn't make him stand out as a successful anti-Communist diplomat.
Mr. Henry A. Kissinger, Mr. Paul W. McCracken, and Mr. Daniel Moynihan are other appointees who, along with Mr. Murphy, are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Moynihan is eren on the national board of Americans for Democratic Action and was one of the authors of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. The Council on Foreign Relations, called “The Invisible Government” by Dan Smoot in his book by this title, is an organization which seeks to undermine our national sovereignty and merge us with other nations under a one-world government, perhaps like the United Nations. Since the 1950's, men who are members of this internationalist organization have managed to have themselves appointed to the highest policymaking positions in our Government, regardless of which party was in office. The goals of the Council on Foreign Relations appear to be uncomfortably close to those of the international Communist criminal conspiracy.
At about that time, President Nixon endorsed the Johnson no-win policy in Vietnam which includes our Government supplying, directly or indirectly, about 80 percent of the materials which the Communist enemy has to use against our own men. He also asked Chief Jus
tice Earl Warren to remain in his position until June 1969. No reasons whatsoever can justify imposing him upon the American people for another term of the Supreme Court. At about the same time, efforts were made in the name of the Nixon administration to test the response of the public to a permanent income surtax. These are the incidents which awakened me from the slumber which would have directed my vote to be cast for President Nixon.
Another fact which could not be ignored was the overwhelming victory by Governor Wallace in my congressional district. He polled 46.1 percent of the vote, Vice President Humphrey had 31.6 percent, and President Nixon was third with 22.3 percent. This left no doubt about the wishes of the people in the district. Should they have been denied under a representative system of government?
With this information, I realized that it was incumbent upon me to make a decision based upon loyalty to my country rather than loyalty to my political party. As you might imagine, it was not the easiest course to take, and it was not taken without serious thought.
It was all too clear that the consequences might not be pleasant. It was obvious that the opponents of the electoral college would use my vote as ammunition in their attempts to abolish it. However, I wanted to emphasize the importance of the electoral college in our form of government, and it seemed that far too few citizens had an adequate understanding of it. The electoral college is much more vital to our Republic today than it was when it was conceived by our Founding Fathers. As I understand it, they established it because it gave to the individual States the right to select our President, and an equally important reason for it is that, due to poor means of communication, a very small percentage of the population had access to information which would permit them to vote intelligently. Electors were intended to be chosen from those citizens who were informed about affairs of state. Today, we have a far worse situation as far as an informed electorate is concerned, for some are not only uninformed, but most are intentionally misinformed. I am sure that all of you readily see how our mass communications media can be used to mold public opinion. We all know that this is being done. A vivid example of this is the treatment which my own electoral vote received. If my vote was so newsworthy that it was reported by most of the newspapers, radio stations, and television stations, then the reasons for the vote were equally newsworthy. I freely gave this information to the Associated Press, the United Press International, television stations and radio stations.
It is interesting that every remark which I made about the differences between Republics and democracies and all references to the fact that our Government is supplying Communist troops who are fighting our men were cut from television films. I requested equal time from the National Broadcasting Television Network to reply to the derogatory remarks made about me by Senator Muskie and Representative O'Hara on television, and a copy of this telegram was sent to the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. That was on January 4, and I have yet to hear from it.
Newspapers did not receive my statement from the wire services. A member of the editorial board of the New York Times called me and requested a copy of my statement explaining my vote. I gladly sent it,