dency, in spite of a clear plurality in the popular vote. A single elector might exercise his alleged freedom of choice as James Russell Lowe was vainly implored to do in 1876, but the chances that it could make any difference are one in ten thousand. Only twice in more than 150 years has an elector clearly voted for someone other than the candidate to whom he was pledged.

William Plummer of New Hampshire for John Quincy Adams instead of James Monroe in 1820, W. F. Turner in Alabama for Judge Walter V. Jones instead of Adlai Stevenson in 1956, and each instance was a show of harmless eccentricity.

Of course as you know since that time Dr. Lloyd Bailey has added his name to the roster of faithless electors in the 1968 election campaign, and I would hope that certainly that possibility will be eliminated by some type of electoral reform in the future.

Senator BAYH. When was Rossiter's book published? He has written several works?

Mr. WEKSELMAN. I am quoting from The American Presidency, the Hiring of Presidents.

Senator BAYH. When was that published?

Mr. WEKSELMAN. I am sorry to say, Senator Bayh, I do not have the publication date here. I just photostated this section of it with which I was concerned, but I can furnish it to you.

Senator BAYH. I was just wondering if it might have been prior

to 1960.

Mr. WEKSELMAN. No; it was subsequent to 1960.

Senator BAYH. Where he excludes the example of Mr. Irwin voting for Harry Byrd in Oklahoma, when Oklahoma went for Nixon? Mr. WEKSELMAN. Yes.

Senator BAYH. And apparently he totally ignores the effort that was made on the part of several State legislators, if not State legislatures, in 1960 to recall previously elected electors, and to subsequently choose a slate of unpledged electors that could be in a position to bargain back and forth after the election had already taken place. We had better check, and I will ask counsel to check, if this was printed, as you think it was, after 1960.

Mr. WEKSELMAN. It was certainly after 1956.

Senator BAYH. Right.

Mr. WEKSELMAN. Because he does mention the Stevenson election. Senator BAYH. He refers to the Alabama elector.

Mr. WEKSELMAN. In any event, as I indicated, I certainly cannot support Mr. Rossiter's case, but I simply point out that so eminent an authority as Mr. Rossiter has come to that conclusion. Obviously, the problem is inherent in the system, and there can be no doubt about it. I might say that I am somewhat abashed in testifying before you, Senator Bayh, in view of your announced position and really splendid, I might say, crusade for the direct popular election, which as I said at the outset has very great appeal to people who are interested in democracy, and there can be no question that the only way to guarantee that the person with the most votes will be elected President is to go to a direct popular election of the President.

Senator BAYH. I do not want to keep interrupting, but my position on this, which was not my original position, was only arrived at after studying this matter. I hope it won't deter you from expressing your opinion.

Mr. WEKSELMAN. No, it will not.

Senator BAYH. This committee has certain responsibilities, regardless of the position of its chairman, and I would hope that my position is never absolutely firm until all of the evidence is in.

Mr. WEKSELMAN. I would hope so.

Senator BAYH. We want to know the position of organizations such as the American Jewish Congress, which has a reputation for civic mindedness and has been helpful to this committee before, and to other committees of Congress. So I think it is right that we have your thoughts on this, although they may differ from what the chairman's thoughts are.

Mr. WEKSELMAN. I can assure the chairman that his present thoughts will not intimidate the witness. I might add that our former position was the one which you now hold, and we were at great difficulty in reaching the one which we have come to.

The reason that we have come to our present position is because we believe that by going to direct election of the President, we give up too much which is of great value to our present system of Government, and I will get into that specifically.

Obviously the other systems which have been proposed in the other Senate resolutions will not be helpful as far as the problem is concerned of electing a minority President. Certainly the district-bydistrict system, the congressional district system will not resolve that problem, has no chance of resolving the problem. The same possibility is built right into that system.

In amplifying just slightly on Congressman Burlison's testimony of this morning, we did some work on the 1944 election, and I am sure that the same general kind of thing would hold up in any election, and that has reference to the proportional system which the President apparently advocated, or at least so stated in his press conference in February.

In 1944 over 3.5 million votes were cast in the State of California. President Roosevelt got a plurality of 475,000 votes out of the 3.5 million cast. That 475,000 vote plurality would have yielded to him, if the votes had been divided proportionately, less than four electoral votes as a plurality over Governor Dewey. He would have carried the State of California with four more electoral votes, slightly less than four than Governor Dewey would have gotten.

In that same election New York gave President Roosevelt a lead of over 316,000 of a total vote of over 6 million. Under the proportional division, Mr. Roosevelt's electoral advantage would have been slightly more than two electoral votes, so he would have gotten, with those two pluralities, one of 475,000 and one of 316,000 a total of electoral plurality of six votes.

Senator BAYH. Did I understand you to say he would have gotten twice as big an electoral vote plurality in California as he did in New York?

Mr. WEKSELMAN. Yes.

Senator BAYH. Yet the vote in California was what-400,000?

Mr. WEKSELMAN. He won by 475,000 out of 3.5 million, whereas in New York he won by 316,000 out of 6 million.

Senator BAYH. I misunderstood.

Mr. WEKSELMAN. Yes. Now take those six and contrast it with what would have happened in the State of South Carolina. In South Carolina Mr. Roosevelt won a plurality of 86,000 votes out of 105,000 cast, and that plurality would have yielded him an electoral lead of almost seven votes, so that 103,000 yielded, would have yielded sevenelectoral-vote lead as opposed to the six which he would have picked up in New York and California, so the proportional system is a clear retrogression. It can do nothing whatsoever to help this problem, nor can the district-by-district system, as was indicated previously.

Now what do we favor? Well, we favor a retention of the winnertake-all system, State by State. We favor the elimination of the electoral college as an entity, so that we at least remove the possibility of the faithless elector. We would have the vote, the electroal vote of each State cast en block, winner take all, for the winner of the plurality in that State. Then in order to help somewhat, and reduce somewhat the possibility of electoral deadlock, we would ask that a majority of the electoral vote no longer be required, that instead of the majority which is now required, a plurality vote in the electoral college be sufficient provided that that plurality reached 40 percent, and as you are aware, pluralities are good for all other offices, I do not see any reason why they ought not to be for Presidents.

Even if there is no 40 percent plurality in the electoral college, we would ask that a contingent election be held in the House of Representatives among the top two electoral vote winners, with each representative casting an individual vote rather than one vote per State as now is the constitutional requirement, and which is obviously an extremely undemocratic method for the selection of the President in a deadlock situation.

That in brief is what we propose, and that in brief is what was embodied, by and large, in House Joint Resolution 1, and the reason that we have come to that is because we believe that a great many of the facets of our National Government are dependent upon the present system of electing the President.

First of all, we are much concerned with the preservation of the two party system in the United States. We believe that it has been one of the geniuses of our government that we have had virtually throughout our system a strong two-party system of government. We believe that going to a direct popular election system will inevitably cause a proliferation of political parties, not because these political parties will have much hope of electing a President, but because all will have to win their power, a number of them, is to prevent anyone from receiving 40 percent of the popular vote, thereby causing a runoff election in which they would be in a position to bargain with the two top candidates who would be a part of the runoff.

Another thing that has been good about our two party system obviously is the fact that we have not had political parties with narrow ideological bases, and I think that inevitably that must occur, if we have a direct popular election system.

Our system, as it works now, makes room for various shades of opinions within the parties. There has been no disastrous defeat for a major political party such as occurs quite often, as you are well aware, in other countries, where there are many, many parties, and in each case based on a very narrow ideology.

Now I heard some testimony when I testified before the House that indicated that most of the minority parties have a State base and really would not have much effect, but if you think about the most recent election in 1968, and think about what might have happened in a direct popular vote election there. As you are aware President Nixon got about 43 percent of the vote, and Vice President Humphrey got about 42 percent of the vote, I do not think it takes too much imagination to realize that, for example, had Governor Rockefeller stayed in the race in a direct popular election, and had Senator McCarthy stayed in the race in a direct popular election, both of whom had national constituencies and not State-based constituencies, neither of the major candidates could have gotten 40 percent of the vote, and that is the kind of a situation which I foresee in every presidential election, if we go to a direct popular vote system.

Incidentally Mr. Burlison, when he testified this morning, gave you some figures on what might have happened in 1968 on one of the other proposals, and I have the exact figures here. Under the proportional system which the President apparently advocates, President Nixon would have received 231.534 votes. Vice President Humphrey would have received 225.362 votes, and Governor Wallace would have received 79.445 votes, and clearly there would have been no electoral winner. The same situation as he indicated existed in 1960, but in that election, the result would have been reversed, because Mr. Nixon would have had 263.632 votes, and President Kennedy would have had 262.671 votes, and would have been a loser.

Now in addition to the possibility of the proliferation of parties, and I am not going to sit here and make an argument about the traditional Federal-State relationships, and about the constitutional compromise which gave the States certain powers, but I want to make an argument here about the necessity now and for the foreseeable future of preserving the electoral clout of the minority groups in this country who are largely concentrated in the urban areas.

You indicated earlier, during Congressman Burlison's testimony, that people in the small States do not seem to be concerned that megalopolis is going to overrun them if we go to direct popular election and I do not think that they ought to be, because as I view the situation, clearly megalopolis will be hurt and not helped by direct popular election.

Senator BAYH. Their leaders do.

Mr. WEKSELMAN. I beg your pardon?

Senator BAYH. Their leaders are the ones who are concerned. My distinguished colleague from South Carolina is one of those who are concerned. I disagree with him on this. But there are a number of leaders in rural America who are concerned about this, and that is why I addressed my question to Congressman Burlison. He contrasted what the average citizen feels to what his elected officials feel. I think we would be stretching the point a bit if we suggested that the average person on the street is more sophisticated and is a greater student of the political process, and has thus reached your conclusion, with which I tend to agree as far as the present inflated position of the large areas. But I do not think the average fellow out on the street realizes this. Mr. WEKSELMAN. I do not know how he came to his conclusion but I think he is ahead of his leader.

Senator BAYH. I do too.

Mr. WEKSELMAN. As a matter of fact, when I testified before the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Dennis of your own State, I believe, asked me how ADA, for example, on whose national board I also sit, and I am in opposition with their stand, how did they come to the conclusion that direct popular election was going to be helpful to them, and how do most "liberals" reach their position on direct popular election, and I answered him that if they think that it is going to help them put across their political program, they are dead wrong, because it is not going to help them.

In my view, the elector clout, as I put it, of the large urban minority groups will be totally destroyed by a direct popular election, and I think it is important that it be preserved, not only that their voice be heard, but that they have actual strong influence in the election of the President, and that is not only because we do not have pure democracy in this country, where the majority rules in every instance.

We have a representative Republican form of government, where the rights of the minorities must be taken into consideration, and must be very very carefully guarded.

I do not want to see their power in presidential elections go down the drain. Not only that, but in addition, even though we have had a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions calling for one-man, one-vote, and even though we have had many reapportionments, both in State legislatures and in the lower House of Congress, there is still no question that the congressional system today has a great deal of advantage built into it for the smaller, that is by population, rural areas of the country, and that the congressional seniority system tends to favor those States of the Union where the populations are more homogeneous, where the voting patterns are more constant, and great disadvantage to the urban States of the Union, where the populations are much more heterogeneous, where the voting patterns are not at all constant, where there is a great deal of flipping and flopping, and where a great deal of congressional seniority, by and large, is not built up.

Now there is no question that there are some safe districts in States which we can call the urban industrial States of the Union. But by and large, as you are well aware, congressional power is centered in the rural States, and that is a balance, a counterbalance which I think is essential that the urban residents of the country must have.

I say this. If we are going to start a reform, it has to be of the entire setup, not just start with the executive branch of the Government, and democratize it to the nth degree, and leave the built-in undemocratic features of the congressional system unchanged.

If nothing else, the mere fact that there are two Senators from each State of the Union, whether it be Alaska or New York, builds in a disadvantage to the urban resident, and he ought not to have taken away from him that advantage which he has, and I concede that he clearly has it, under the present system.

Even though the State of Alaska may be overrepresented in the electoral college in terms of its population, not justifying three electors, nevertheless clearly the large States have some built-in advantages in the present system which we believe it is very very important for them to keep, unless we can come to a point where we can revise the entire system.