One of them was heard to say, "I am getting impatient. I have been here 10 years and I still don't have membership in the Foreign Relations Committee, a committee that I have wanted all these years."

Whereupon, one of the senior members of the Foreign Relations Committee said, "My dear brother, I was here 23 years before I got on this committee."

Now, maybe we ought to have a law that says after you get to be 40 or 41 you can no longer be Senator, then there will be more rapid turnover, and then people will get on the Foreign Relations Committee sooner. They might not serve more than 6 months once they get there, but they will get there sooner.

It would, perhaps, mollify some younger people and younger Senators, but I would tremble for the balance and equality of government that would come out from such a system.

Mr. WARREN. From a direct election involving people under the age of 21?

Senator HRUSKA. Well, where is the balance of the thing? Shall we limit it to 31?

Mr. WARREN. When they were proposing that women vote, were you advancing the same argument of where would the balance come from that all these women would be allowed to vote?

Senator HRUSKA. Within our Republican ranks in the Senate-I do not understand.

Mr. WARREN. Your argument basically was, there was going to be an offsetting effect by the younger people, by the extension of the franchise to them.

Were you advancing the same argument when they were attempting to franchise the women, Senator?

Senator HRUSKA. I believe we misunderstood each other and have been talking on different points.

The reason for my calling your attention to that example is this: that we have sort of a system where all people are represented, and it is system which favors those who get there sooner and have a little more experience and can use things of that kind, whether it is the electoral process or whether it is the organization of the Senate process.

Now, we are entitled to get impatient. We should be. We should be ambitious, we should be aggressive. We should try our very best. But all of us cannot succeed in our goals all at one time regardless of our age.

Dr. ASHMAN. But, Senator, the fact you favor the lowering of the voting age certainly indicates an awareness and agreement with our position. I submit that the generation of people between 18 and 21. as a result of the many recent-their position is different.

It is not that they are better people, it is just that you did it. You gave them television and better schools and more money for education and travel, and everything, and they are smarter and better socially and emotionally oriented for progress.

The generation you spoke of between 40 to 45 will not be dressing bizarrely so as to gain attention because people won't listen any other way. They are not raising hell on campuses of colleges around the country to call attention to themselves.

This younger generation is. This young generation that you are ready to give the vote to is more concerned with inequity than other generations.

They do demand that if we talk in terms of democracy that we give it to them, and it is a more tangible, realistic frustration for them when you say, "We can still elect a man President of the United States, even though most of the people did not vote for him."

It does not bother people that are older, and that is exactly what Senator Bayh was getting at, and I think that is Dennis' answer. We have young people today who feel there is a great deal that must be done to get this country right. The term was "the establishment." That is a little out now.

Now the "in" term is, I understand is, "the system."

But this system, just as you are concerned about States being normative, they want our system to be normative.

Let us get rid of the 18-year-old vote; let us get rid of the electoral college; and then let us take a look at the filibuster and a couple of other things, and then let us take a look at the fact of the fellow who moves, and because of his registration may not be able to vote. I am not agreeing with everything. I am just trying to join in the answer to Senator Bayh's question. Young people today are worried, unsettled, and they are frustrated. They are more attuned to inequity. The inequity exists: why maintain the inequity, the inequity by a district plan, when you can eliminate the inequity?

Why concern yourself with the practicality as to how many Senators will vote for it?

Why not concern yourself with the practicality if the States will ratify that amendment if you get it through the Senate, and that is our position?

Senator HRUSKA. We cannot get along without a system in a nation of 200 million people, and we have to concern ourselves with what 100 men-99 men and one woman-will say about that. That is our system.

It is the purpose of a committee to try, where a change is desired, to whittle down that change, the proposed change, down or pad it up enough so that it will be acceptable to enough people to be able to put it before the 34 States for a decision.

Dr. ASHMAN. Then let the witness

Senator HRUSKA. Not until we change that system and say one man can do it. That would not work either, would it?

Dr. ASHMAN. The young people today are not as attuned and not as receptive to compromise as those who have lived with it longer. The fact that they are not as ready to accept compromise does not mean that the compromise is not right. They may be right.

In this particular case, I suggest they are.

Senator HRUSKA. I am interested in the repeated statement of these witnesses of the fact that youth is different these days than it was.

I have just shepherded three offspring of Mrs. Hruska and myself through the difficult ages of the twenties, and they are now approaching 30, so I know what you mean.

We have had many debates at our house. We have not settled many things, but we have had many debates on this subject.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to depart the committee room because of an appointment in my office. I am grateful to you for your patience.

Senator BAYH. Well, I appreciate

Senator HRUSKA. And I thank the witnesses, too, for their very helpful discussion.

Dr. ASHMAN. Thank you.

Senator BAYH. I appreciate Senator Hruska's taking his time to be with us. As one of the most conscientious members of our subcommittee, we appreciate having your advice and counsel and comments.

Gentlemen, you have been very patient. The hour is fast approaching 4:30. We have had you on the griddle for almost 2 hours. It has been very helpful. And I hope, we are successful in making a major change in the electoral college system.

Success or failure on this question, however, should not deter you in your efforts to get more and more young people actively involved in projects like lowering the voting age, and reform of the electoral college system.

I believe I speak for most of the members of this committee-I cannot pretend to speak for all of them-but I think most of us, regardless of our age, have the greatest respect for the ability of young people, and we would like to see this energy and this desire and drive and dedication harnessed in a positive way. I personally feel that the goals which you have set for yourself are in this category, and I salute you for them, and wish you success in your efforts.

I want to cooperate, as one Senator, as much as I can and in any way.

As chairman of the subcommittee, though, I have the obligation to remain impartial and see that all views are heard and that everyone has a chance to express his opinion.

You have been very helpful, and thank you very much.

Dr. ASHMAN. Thank you.

Dr. SHAO. Thank you.

Mr. WARREN. Thank you.

Senator BAYH. At this point in the record, there will be inserted a letter and statement from Senator Moss; and a letter from Mr. Barthelmes, administrative assistant to Congressman Bolling of Missouri, enclosing a statement from the Montgomery County Alliance for Democratic Reform.

(The documents referred to follow :)

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 23, 1969. DEAR MR. CONRAD: I am enclosing a brief statement outlining the position of the Montgomery County (Maryland) Alliance for Democratic Reform in respect to the system of nomination and election of Presidents. The statement is a distillation of the formal positions taken at an ADR workshop earlier this month. It would be appreciated if this could be included in the printed report of the hearings on this subject being conducted January 23 and 24 by the subcommittee on constitutional amendments of which you are chief counsel.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

WES BARTHELMES.

STATEMENT OF THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY (MARYLAND) ALLIANCE FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORM (ADR) SUBMITTED BY WES BARTHELMES OF THE ADR ELECTION COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman and your fellow members of your distinguished subcommittee. I wish this morning to submit to you a brief summary of the position of the Montgomery County (Maryland) Alliance for Democratic Reform (ADR) in respect to alteration in the machinery for presidential nominations and elections.

However, I wish first to identify briefly the organization whose views I am submitting. The ADR is a relatively new political grouping. It is primarily composed of persons who supported either Senators Robert Kennedy, George McGovern or Eugene McCarthy for the Democratic presidential nomination. Its members, drawing on their experiences last year, believe that the party machinery for selection of a nominee of their party and the presidential constitutional apparatus are inadequate to say the least. It is this shared concern that helped to bring us together as a group in a resolve to work within the Democratic Party for alterations in the nomination and election system. Consequently, on January 11 of this year, more than 100 members of the ADR attended an all-day workshop on election reform. As a result of this meeting, characterized by full and forceful exchange of views, the workshop participants voted to support the following positions:

1. A federally conducted, direct national primary for the selection of presidential nominees-with a provision for a run-off. President Wilson in 1913 proposed to the Congress that a national direct primary be established.

2. Establishment by the Congress of a "National Election Commission." This Commission would be charged with the responsibility for the creation and application of national election standards in such areas as voter registration, voting qualifications, voting procedures, and tabulation and adjudication of election results. Senator Nelson of Wisconsin has proposed just such a commission.

While in the process of securing these two objectives, which undoubtedly would take many, many years, the ADR workshop urges the Congress to undertake an immediate reform of the Electoral College in accordance with the terms of House Joint Resolution 6 introduced by Rep. Bingham (D-N.Y.) on January 3, 1969, opening day of this 91st Congress.

In its briefest form, the Bingham resolution would:

1. Maintain the system of electoral votes but eliminate the electors themselves. The ADR workshop's feeling may be summed up in this way: "If the electors do as they should, they, the electors, are unnecessary; if they do not, then they're dangerous." An omnibus proposal made in 1826 by Representative Haynes of Georgia contains such a feature.

2. The provision of a run-off election between the two candidates receiving the most votes-if neither candidate received a majority of the electoral votes. This is a variant of a proposal by Rep. Hale Boggs (D-La.) that there be a runoff if no presidential candidate receives a plurality of at least 40 percent of the electoral vote.

Without doubt the arguments in support of the ADR electoral college reform are familiar to you. Therefore, I shall repeat them in their briefest form:

1. The change is minimal and, therefore, when political change in this country comes with glacial speed, such minimal change is most easily acceptable.

2. Our proposal corresponds most closely with the existing Federal principle. It simply writes into the Constitution what has become customary-that the faceless electors not contradict the election results of their state.

3. It will best preserve the system of two major political parties.

4. The provision for a run-off eliminates the hazards of a brokered decision within the House of Representatives.

5. Importantly, it preserves the political "balance" between urban states and the minimum of three electors guaranteed the smaller states.

In closing, I wish to point out that the ADR proposals are made without disrespect to the myriad of other proposals before this subcommittee. Each has merits. Ours, in football terms, was a "judgment call." For example, we considered that it is ultimately proper to abolish the electoral college concept in its entirety. We adopted a less far-reaching position on grounds that quite possibly insufficient time exists between now and 1972, the next presidential election, to effect such an uprooting, however needed it may be.

U.S. SENATE,

Hon. BIRCH BAYH,

COMMITTEE, INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,
Washington, D.C., January 23, 1969.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments,
Senate Judiciary Committee,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR BIRCH: I had hoped to get to the subcommittee meeting this morning to make this statement personally, but since I had to be on the Senate Floor for the debate on the Hickel nomination, I was not able to do so.

I will appreciate it if you will enter the attached statement into the record of the hearings. I am delighted you are holding them, and am anxious to see the proposal which comes to the Floor.

Sincerely,

FRANK E. Moss,

U.S. Senator.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK E. Moss (DEMOCRAT, OF UTAH)

Mr. Chairman: In his brilliant document, "Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the United States During the First Century of Its History" (1892), Herbert V. Ames reported as respects our electoral college; "The system has not worked well in actual use, and no part of the Constitution has caused so much dissatisfaction and hence given rise to so many amendments to effect a change."

His comment would be equally valid today, particularly when the nation has just brushed past the possibility of the election of the President by the House of Representatives and of the Vice President by the Senate.

Our electoral system has unquestionably outlived some of its original functions when the country witnesses, as it did last year, the presentation of a proposal to circumvent the selection of the President by the House of Representatives (wherein each state possesses only one vote), by having each candidate for the House pledge in advance that he would vote for that candidate who had obtained the highest percentage of the popular vote.

The near miss and the proposal to deal with a frightening possibility only dramatize the fact that our electoral system must be changed. But such recognition need not, however, push us to the conclusion that the machinery in its entirety should be scrapped. To quote from Lucius Cary, Viscount Falkland, as used by the late President Kennedy in this very context.

"When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change."

The method for electing the President and the Vice President was the most difficult question to be resolved by the Framers of the Constitution. It was also the last great decision to be made by the convention. Precedents for the election of the chief of state of a Republic were virtually non-existent. Eleven different modes were suggested some of which were adopted and then reconsidered. The eventual choice of presidential electors was a compromise between selection by the legislative branch and popular election. Inherent in the decision were basic principles of our constitutional system including among others, the role of the large and the small states, and the doctrines of separation of powers and checks and balances. Basic to everything else was the concept of federalism.

States were to participate in the election of the President through the electoral system by which it was believed that the states with the large populations would undoubtedly furnish the candidates and, since it was thought that in most elections no one candidate would ever receive a majority of electoral votes, the ultimate decision would be made by the House of Representatives, voting by states.

This classic creation in a federal system was meant to operate by having the nation's best informed and most able and knowledgeable citizens meet in their several states and there, secured by distance from corruption and influence, make their choice. In a country of vast geographical distances with a population not wholly literate, this was a feasible system.

The advent of political parties and subsequently of the unit rule altered irrevocably the function of the presidential electors. But these changes, along with