an incentive to third parties, certainly it has not precluded splinter parties. The American Bar Association in their 10 months study consulted the works of 10 leading political scientists. I do not know whether Rossiter was one of them. I will ask counsel to get the names of these work. I know that the late V. O. Key was one of the authors, recognized political scientists, who studied the political structure and every one of those 10 came to the conclusion that the electoral college, as the vehicle for electing the President of the United States, had a relatively insignificant part to play in the development and the maintenance of the two-party system. I do not know whether I am right or not but the Bar Association was certainly impressed with this argument. If you are really concerned, as I am, about how you generate more political activity and get more people involved in the system, then the present system really does not do that. Presently in those States where you think you are going to win big or you are going to lose big, there is no incentive to get involved in political activity, and that is because of the winnertake-all system. Under popular election, however, the Republican precinct committeemen and the Democratic precinct committeemen, in those traditionally one-party States are not going to take it easy. Any political leader, large or small, knows each 50 votes he can get, wherever they are, are going to count and this is going to make a more meaningful two-party system. (The American Bar Association study follows:) ELECTING THE PRESIDENT A Report of the Commission on Electoral College Reform American Bar Association January 1967 American Bar Association Commission on Electoral College Reform COMMISSION MEMBERS Robert G. Storey, Chairman, Texas Paul Freund, Massachusetts E. Smythe Gambrell, Georgia William T. Gossett, Michigan Kenneth B. Keating, New York James C. Kirby, Jr., Illinois James M. Nabrit, Jr., Washington, D.C. Herman Phleger, California C. Herman Pritchett, California Walter P. Reuther, Michigan Whitney North Seymour, New York John D. Feerick, Advisor to Commission Edward W. Kuhn, Board of Governors Liaison STAFF American Bar Association Washington Office 1705 DeSales Street, N. W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Donald E. Channell, Director Lowell R. Beck, Associate Director Harry W. Swegle, Assistant Director for Public Information Foreword The Commission on Electoral College Reform was formed by the American Bar Association at the midyear session of the House of Delegates in February, 1966. Edward W. Kuhn, then President of the American Bar Association, reported at the time that congressional and executive leaders had urged the Association to examine the subject of electoral reform. He stated that this was due in some measure to the results the American Bar Association had achieved in promoting the proposed Twenty-fifth Amendment on Presidential Inability and the Vice-Presidential Vacancy. In selecting the members of the Commission, the American Bar Association endeavored to have different walks of life, professions, and parts of the United States represented. Thus, governors, judges, lawyers, constitutional law authorities, political scientists, and representatives from labor and management were invited to be members of the Commission. Comprising the Commission are: Henry Bellmon, the Governor of Oklahoma; Paul Freund, Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School; E. Smythe Gambrell, Georgia attorney and former President of the American Bar Association (1955-1956); Ed Gossett, Texas attorney and former member of Congress from Texas (1939-1951); William T. Gossett, Michigan attorney, former President of the American Bar Foundation, and former General Counsel to the Ford Motor Company; William J. Jameson, United States District Court Judge for Montana and former President of the American Bar Association (1953-1954); Kenneth B. Keating, Associate Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, former United States Representative (1947-1959), and United States Senator from New York (1959-1965); Otto E. Kerner, the Governor of Illinois; James C. Kirby, Jr., Professor of Constitutional Law, Northwestern University Law School, and former Chief Counsel to the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments of the Senate Judiciary Committee; James M. Nabrit, Jr., Deputy United States Representative to the United Nations and President of Howard University (on leave of absence); Herman Phleger, California attorney and former Legal Advisor to the United States Department of State (1953-1957); C. Herman Pritchett, Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago, on leave of absence at the University of California at Santa Barbara, and former President of the American Political Science Association; Walter P. Reuther, President of the United Automobile Workers Union and Vice-President of the AFL-CIO; and Whitney North Seymour, New York attorney and former President of the American Bar Association (1960-1961). The Commission's advisor, John D. Feerick, is a New York attorney who served as a member of the American Bar Association Conference on Presidential Inability and Succession and also as an advisor to the Special American Bar Association Committee on Presidential Inability and the Vice Presidential Vacancy. The Commission's liaison with the American Bar Association is Edward W. Kuhn, former President of the American Bar Association (1965-1966). Upon its creation, the Commission was directed to seek a nonpartisan formula for electing a President and a Vice-President of the United States. In accordance with this direction, the Commission had its staff undertake a comprehensive study of the electoral college system. After this study was supplied to the Commission, the Commission convened in Washington, D.C., on May 19 and 20, 1966. At these meetings the Commission explored all of the pending proposals for reform of the electoral college system of electing a President and a Vice-President. It then decided that detailed studies of a number of specific questions were necessary. During the next few months the staff collected and compiled information and data regarding these questions. It studied the electoral systems of other countries, solicited the opinions of state officials regarding various aspects of the state election laws, and consulted with numerous persons and organizations knowledgeable in the area of electoral reform. The results of this comprehensive investigation were embodied in reports and memoranda which were sent to the Commission between June and October, 1966. The Commission reconvened in Chicago, Illinois, on October 7, 1966. At that meeting the Commission discussed the subject of electoral reform in considerable detail and reached a consensus as to what it considered to be the best method of electing a President and a Vice-President. Although there was general agreement on the |