Third, the Proportional Voting System is founded on a principle of representation unknown to our national institutions and, in my opinion, to the last degree dangerous. I mean the principle of P.R.--Proportional Representation. While I do not feel that the application of the principle would work any evil if applied solely to the distribution of a state's electoral vote for President, I do fear that it would establish a precedent for the application of the same principle to a state's representation in Congress. With what grace could you tell the members of a splinter party that they were entitled to one-tenth of a state's representation in the electoral vote for President but not to one-tenth of its representation in the Congress?

To complete this part of my argument I should now demonstrate the evils of P.R. as a mode of election to a legislative body, but perhaps these have been made sufficiently obvious by the experience of countries that have tried it. What I am saying comes down to this. I am afraid of proportional voting because of its probable side effects, I look upon it as a wonder drug, like thalidomide, that will cure the illnesses for which it was compounded but may produce a monstrous birth.

Finally, let me say a word on the Administration's proposal⭑--your Joint Resolution, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me objectionable, not for what it provides but for what it fails to provide. It is all very well to abolish the Electors while keeping their electoral votes, but the change is trivial. There has never been a single occasion, and I doubt if there ever is one, when the eccentricities of the Electors have changed the result of an election. To alter the mode of voting when the election is thrown into the House is far from trivial, and almost everyone agrees that it ought to be done. But if you do it now without at the same time breaking up the general ticket system, you are throwing away a valuable card or bargaining counter. The large states have an unjust advantage in the November election, the small states have the advantage if the election is thrown into the House of Representatives in January. The giving up of one inequity may be the price of giving up the other.

The Administration plan, however, is to continue the general ticket system and, indeed, to write it into the Constitution. Its effect would be to postpone for many years any real reform of the electoral system, 'for if this resolution passes Congress now and is ratified by the states, it will certainly be an obstacle to any immediate reconsideration of the subject.

* Proposal advocated by President Johnson in 1966 which would have abolished the person and office of elector but would have retained the unit vote (winner-take-all) system within the states.

The National Chamber urges you to recommend to the Senate either the nationwide popular vote method or the district method. We believe that the predominant political party in every state, large or small, should be compelled by the Constitution to come into the contest fairly, and that in any election of the President, the people and not the states should be the fountain of power.

The National Chamber's Board of Directors has approved submittal to referendum of the following proposed policy declaration.

Each chamber of commerce and trade and professional association affiliated with the National Chamber is asked to vote "Yes" or "No" on its adoption. Views of Business Members of the National Chamber should be expressed through the chambers and associations in which they hold memberships.

PROPOSED POLICY DECLARATION

The Chamber of Commerce of the United States supports
the adoption of an Amendment to the Constitution that would:
1. Abolish the Electoral College

2. Provide for the election of the President and Vice Presi-
dent of the United States on one of the following bases:
A. Nationwide Popular Vote, i.e., a plurality of the
popular votes cast in the nation at large.

B. The District Method, i.e., one electoral vote for
each congressional district and two electoral
votes at large within each state with a majority
of electoral votes in the nation required for elec-
tion.

In this referendum each chamber or association having 25 members or less is entitled
to one vote. For each additional 200 members over 25, an organization is entitled to
one additional vote. The maximum number of votes an organization may cast is 10.
A numeral beside the name of your organization imprinted on the ballot card shows
the number of votes to which the organization is entitled according to our records.
Adoption of the policy declaration proposed in this referendum requires: (1) that
one-third of the voting strength of the Chamber's organization members must be re-
corded in the referendum voting; and (2) that two-thirds of the votes thus cast,
representing at least 25 states, favor adoption of the policy declaration.

To be recorded, votes must be received at National Chamber headquarters
on or before January 31, 1966.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES/WASHINGTON, D.C.

29-018 - 6961

About This Proposed Policy Declaration . .

A "Yes" vote will signify your desire that the National Chamber have a policy position in favor of electoral college reform and in support of an Amendment to the Constitution that would provide for the adoption of either the Nationwide Popular Vote or the District Method for the election of the President and Vice President of the United States.

A "No" vote will signify your desire that the National Chamber have no policy on this subject, and that it remain strictly neutral in the matter.

Advocates of electoral college reform, regardless of the method of reform advocated, are generally in agreement that the present system of electing the President and Vice President is unfair, inaccurate, uncertain and undemocratic.

Opponents of electoral college reform contend that, despite some minor weaknesses, the present system has been used successfully and should be retained.

The National Chamber's Board of Directors after a study conducted by its Public Affairs Committee, has proposed this policy declaration because it believes strongly that the weaknesses in the present system should be corrected and that either of two methods would constitute effective reform, i.e., the Nationwide Popular Vote or the District Method.

A more detailed explanation of the issue is presented on the following pages, including the major arguments on both sides of the question and a description of major alternate reform proposals.

MAJORITY
PLURALITY

UNIT VOTE
SYSTEM

WINNER-TAKE-ALL,

GENERAL TICKET OR
BLOC VOTING SYSTEM
QUORUM
FEDERAL SYSTEM

GERRYMANDER

88th CONGRESS 89th CONGRESS

MARGINAL

SWING

AT LARGE

SINGLE MEMBER
DISTRICT

PROPORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

More than 50 per cent of the total vote cast.

Where a candidate, while receiving less than 50 per cent of the total
vote cast receives more votes than any other candidate for the
same office.

Election of a state's Presidential electors en bloc with one candidate
receiving all of the state's electoral votes. Plurality required.
Same as Unit Vote System.

Number of members needed to legally transact official business.

A union of individual states in a national unit with limited powers accorded to the states and the national government.

To establish voting areas, districts, etc., in an unnatural and unfair way so as to give one political party an advantage.

The Congress seated for the 1963-64 period.

The Congress seated for the 1965-66 period.

A district or state usually won by a narrow margin of the popular vote. A district or state (not necessarily marginal) which historically goes to alternate political parties with some frequency.

Candidate who runs for office on a statewide basis.

A district of a state from which only one candidate will be elected. (as opposed to proportional representation)

Allocation of membership in legislative bodies to political parties in proportion to the share of the total vote received by each party.