« 上一頁繼續 »
makers perhaps disagreed with Bailey's action, but they upheld his right to take that action. So did State Board of Elections Chairman Alex Brock and Assistant State Attorney General James Broughton.
The crux of the entire affair is that Congress does not have a right to change the votes of the electoral college. Its duty is to count the votes, nothing more. If it wishes to revise the constitutional provisions on the matter, then Congress must move to get a constitutional amendment approved by the people.
Dr. Bailey proved his point quite clearly in the unprecedented debate and vote taken in Congress on Monday.
Senator THURMOND. My experience has been that the local radio stations and TV's will be much fairer and present your views better than the networks. If your position in it is not in accord with the policymakers of the networks then you won't get their attention.
Dr. Bailey. That is right.
Senator THURMOND. The networks are going to present what they want to and they are going to censor what they want to.
Dr. BAILEY. That is the way it seems.
Senator THURMOND. I think those are all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. I wish to express my appreciation this morning to Dr. Bailey for coming here and taking his time especially in view of the illness, I understand, of his family. We appreciate very much your presence.
Dr. BAILEY. Thank you.
Senator Bays. If you have some more time I would like to further explore some of your thoughts, Dr. Bailey?
Dr. BAILEY. Certainly.
Senator BAYH. As I understand it, the State law of North Carolina requires that the party shall choose the electors but that only the major candidates or the presidential candidates' names themselves appear on the ballot. Is that correct?
Dr. BAILEY. That is correct.
Senator Bayh. Do you think it is important to have the candidatesall of the candidates—conduct nationwide campaigns based on an appeal to the people of this country, telling the people what they think the issues are and how they can be met ?
Dr. BAILEY. Well, let me say, first, I don't pretend to know all the answers. That is why I am not in your position of having this problem.
Senator Bayi. I don't know all the answers either. I won't speak for either one of my two colleagues but I certainly don't know all the answers.
Dr. BAILEY. But I do have some opinions about this. I think it is certainly advantageous to the people to know who the major candidates are and what they believe if the information can be disseminated. I think that one of our biggest problems is getting information to the people and having a truly informed electorate. If that could be done, I think that our whole country would probably be different today.
Senator Bayu. The thing that concerned me about your decision to vote for Mr. Wallace was that it effectively denied any voice to the people who voted for Mr. Nixon, and these people went to the polls on the assumption that a vote for Mr. Nixon's electoral slate would be a vote for Mr. Nixon. These are the rules of the game.
This, in essence, disfranchised all of the people of the Second District of North Carolina who voted for Nixon because there wasn't any way at all that their votes could be counted because the person who
represents them was Lloyd Bailey, who eventually voted for George i Wallace.
This is my concern. I expressed it before the Senate earlier this year. I haven't tried to hide it.
How did you explain this to the people who wanted to vote for Dick Nixon in North Carolina and who could not count on you, as a Republican elector, when the votes were cast?
Dr. BAILEY. That is a hard question to answer because it is necessary to get into several points. The people in my district who voted for Nixon were 22, 23, I believe percent. There would have been more people in my district who would not have been represented had I done otherwise. I did represent by my vote 46.1 percent of the people in the district, and I was nominated by the district. It is true that the State elector, the totals of the State elected me, but my district nominated me.
Senator Bayh. May I explore that? In your statement you did mention the representative aspect of your role. You said you represented the people of your district. As you know, however, we don't have a district system, we have a statewide unit rule system.
In view of your feeling that you should represent the people of your district, how can you logically reply to Senator Thurmond's question that if this had meant the election of Hubert Humphrey, who ran second in your district and considerably ahead of President Nixon, that then the desire to represent either the man that carried the most votes or the second most would not be considered ? On one hand you are concerned about representation and on the next you use different Falues.
Dr. BAILEY. You are exactly right. Then I would have had to fall back on my beliefs for what would be best for the country. I have spent a good bit of time studying this, I mean politics in general, policies of government in general, not just since I became an elector. I have been very interested in these matters for a number of years. I think that I have good information on which to base an opinion of that type. I know for a faot that there are many who for one reason or another don't have the information which might have influenced their votes and decided these percentages we are talking about. So there I would have had to stick my neck out for my country.
Senator Bayh. I think your desire to stick your neck out for your country is an admirable one. It is one I think that all my colleagues in the Senate share. This argument breaks down, with all due respect to you, on the interpretation of how one can best stick his neck out for his country.
Much of your statement was directed to the inability of the average voter to make a considered good faith, intelligent judgment. Is that correct? Dr. BAILEY. Not the ability. Senator Bayh. Under the present circumstances. Dr. BAILEY. Under the present circumstances, yes, that is true. Unless a man has all of the facts and knows both sides of the question or argument there is no way he can arrive at a decision.
Senator BAYH. Do you believe then, as I think your statement said, that this type of decision is even more difficult to realize under present day conditions than it was back when our Founding Fathers established the Constitution?
Dr. BAILEY. I think so.
Senator BAYH. In other words, despite the fact that we have radio and television, despite the fact that over these 200 years we now have a vast, comprehensive system of public school education, that you still feel we are in a worse position than we were 200 years ago?
Dr. BAILEY. I do. A man who has unlimited funds can get all the time he wants on television. If the people hear nothing but his point or if they hear his side 75 percent that certainly would have some bearing on the situation. I think it would be better for the people to know nothing than to have distorted news.
Senator Bayh. Do you feel there is a national conspiracy of some kind, in which the news media is involved? You kept referring to the fact that, consistently, not only the New York Times but other papers cut out parts of your statement. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I sort of read between the lines, although you were very careful and did not say conspiracy, and if you wouldn't want to say it here I wouldn't want you to. Is this part of a big conspiracy in which we have news media trying to prevent things from happening or creating an attitude and environment in which certain things will happen?
Dr. BAILEY. Well, it would appear so. I cannot prove this but circumstantial evidence to me is pretty clear on this. If there is one thing that is important to the survival of our country it is to keep the republic from being changed into a democracy. As a republic this country has made unprecedented gains, has grown stronger, greater than any other country in the history of the world. Democracies, on the other hand, have fallen by the wayside and who would gain in this world if we would fall by the wayside? It can only point in one direction.
Senator Bayh. I differ with you in how we describe a republic. The main element of a republican form of government is that it is a representative form of government.
But be that as it may, let me pursue this business of voting intelligently. The basic ingredient of a government which is representative of the people is an election in which the people elect representatives. In presidential elections, the electors are chosen by the people. In other words, the only way an elector in the second district of North Carolina can be elected is by vote of the people, who, by your own definition, are not qualified to make that choice.
Now, to follow this through, the average voter also votes for U.S. Senator and for Governor, State legislators, and county officials.
Senator ERVIN. Let me interject, the voter voted in a highly intelligent manner for a U.S. Senator in this election. [Laughter.]
Senator Bayh. I share that belief of the Senator from North Carolina completely.
Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, I was wondering, too, if as he has previously explained that there is a great difference in the vote of a majority in the whole Nation, composed of 50 States, and the vote for the candidates in a State. That is the very distinction our Constitution makes. In other words, the Constitution doesn't provide for a vote by the people of the whole Nation to elect a President. The States have the authority to provide that their Governor and State officers can be elected by a majority vote of the people. There are only two levels of government mentioned in the Constitution. The State and the Fed
eral level. The States have further provided that the cities can select their mayors and so forth.
Now, in New Orleans you have parishes but there is a big distinction in the people of the State electing a head of government and the people in a nation electing a head of government. The Nation is composed of 50 States, and that is where we have the Federal system of government under the Constitution. So I just wanted to make that clear. I think that Dr. Bailey, as I conceive, from what he says, believes in the Federal type of system in which the people in each State control their own policies and then the States have a big say so in the Nation as to the policies that control.
But now if we are going to let the people of the whole Nation just act by a great majority just by number you have a difference between a Federal system and a straight democracy. That is what I object to and as I conceive what Dr. Bailey objects to. Am I right?
Dr. BAILEY. Yes, sir.
Senator ERVIN. There is an old Latin expression-my Latin is very poor—“vox popularis esse vox deus," the voice of people is the voice of God. I agree that that is true every time the people agree with me, but when they disagree with me I have serious doubts about the truth of that statement. (Laughter.]
Senator BayH. I don't want to leave this just yet, as I have some different opinions than our distinguished colleague from South Carolina. However, I think he undoubtedly expresses the philosophy behind Dr. Bailey's vote. I must say, very frankly, to make a distinction between the vote of 2 million people and the vote of 200 million people living in 50 States is to try to say there is a distinction between 12 and a dozen oranges. I think we are talking about basically the same thing. The thing that concerns me the most about this whole business, and it is a matter which I am sure Dr. Bailey and all of us would be glad to stop hearing about, that the average voter is not intelligent enough to make a choice for President. If we went one step further and say that there must be some question about his vote for U.S. Senator, which leads me to the real difficult. If he chooses an elector who he has no opportunity to vote for personally, but can only vote for him by voting for a presidential candidate, that is the real matter of concern.
Senator THURMOND. Šír. Chairman, on the record at this point did he say—you said Dr. Bailey said he didn't have the intelligence. He didn't say that. Dr. Bailey said he didn't have the information. He probably has the intelligence and if he had the information he could draw maybe a sounder conclusion, as the elector would do. But on account of lacking the information that the elector might have, because the elector is in a position to obtain more information, then he is in a little different category; is that what you meant, Doctor? Dr. BAILEY. Basically that is right.
Senator Bayh. Will the doctor yield; I would like to ask my colleague from South Carolina how that average voter is in a position to get the necessary information to vote for that one elector who is smarter than the other two electors that were running in North Carolina in the second congressional district ?
Senator THURMOND. Well, Dr. Bailey made the statement, as I construe it, when he became an elector that he intended to vote for Nixon, and that when the election was over he intended to vote for Nixon but that later certain positions taken by Mr. Nixon caused him to change his opinion and vote for Mr. Wallace; is that correct, Dr. Bailey?
Dr. BAILEY. That is right. I took those positions
Senator THURMOND. You understand, of course, I was for Mr. Nixon all the way. I mean I want to make that clear. I think the position was clear on that, so we didn't agree on that. But I am just trying to help you get your position set out correctly here.
Dr. BAILEY. Well, it was automatic until these things came up which I took exception to, which made me begin to think independently about it. And this is the result.
Senator THURMOND. That was in the intervening period between the election and the time you cast your vote in the electoral college?
Dr. BAILEY. That is right.
Senator THURMOND. The November election and casting your vote in the electoral college in December or a month later?
Dr. BAILEY. It was when those things began to happen. Until then I just assumed automatically I would go up with the rest and just vote as they did because it was the thing to do, but then later it didn't appear that way to me.
Senator Bays. But you did say that under the present system, the complete freedom of the elector, because of certain things that were making it more difficult for the individual voter to make the right judgment, that this independent right of the elector to do whatever he pleases is more necessary now than it was 200 years ago. Did you say that?
Dr. BAILEY. I think so, under these circumstances.
On page 6 of your statement you made reference to the fact that unless we have the present system, with electoral votes, and with this freedom of the elector, it would be infinitely more difficult for a third political party to become influential on the national scene. Is my understanding correct, that you feel our political system is not best served by a strong two-party system?
Dr. BAILEY. Not necessarily. I think that what it boils down to is giving the people a choice every time. Of course, these are personal views, and everyone has his own idea about these things, but it appears to me there, our two major parties are really one, as puppets on a string controlled somewhere up there. They have come so close together in trying to outdo or outbid each other with different things, welfare funds and things like that, that they are really not presenting two different political philosophies for the people, and in a circumstance like that I think we need a third party to come in.
Senator Barn. This is what concerns me, the matter of giving the people a choice. It comes back to the fact that the Nixon voters of North Carolina didn't have a full choice, they didn't have a choice because the voters who wanted to vote for Richard Nixon didn't have any way of doing it.
Dr. Bailey. That is right.