網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

were cast for Vice President in each State shall be credited with such proportion of the electoral votes thereof as he received of the total vote of the electors therein for Vice President. In making the computation, fractional numbers less than one-thousandth of an electoral vote shall be disregarded. The person having the greatets number of electoral votes for President shall be the President if such number be at least 40 per centum of the whole number of such electoral votes. If no person has at least 40 per centum of the whole number of electoral votes, then from the persons having the three highest number of electoral votes for President, the Senate and House of Representatives sitting in joint session shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. A majority of the votes of the combined authorized membership of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be necessary for a choice.

The Vice President shall be likewise elected, at the same time and in the same manner and subject to the same provisions, as the President, but no person constitutionally ineligible for the Office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States.

The adoption of this language will effect a basic, far-reaching and necessary reform in our constiutional method for selecting a President and Vice President and provide for the retention of the federal system and will preserve the political dual identity of the States and regions in the administration of vital matters, such as age, residence, registration, and absentee voting requirements.

I should add that I am not in favor of the Federal Government taking over the control of those vital election machinery provisions always provided by State law, and I think properly so provided, because the experience of the States differs in this very vital field.

Mr. Chairman, the historical arguments as to why the electoral college system should be reformed have been stated and restated in the past with such power, force, and eloquence that I am reluctant to advert to them now and do not believe that it is necessary to inform and enlighten the members of this committee and the people on the issues. Committee hearings of both the House and Senate and the Congressional Record are replete with these arguments, and I congratulate this committee upon the fullness of its hearings heretofore, and I am sure upon the fullness of the hearings now underway. You have allowed, and I am sure will allow, every point of view to be heard at all reasonable length.

The urgent need today is to examine and weigh on the scales of judgment new evidence and new developments that have effect and influence on the issue involved.

We are all familiar with the decision of the Supreme Court on March 26, 1962, in the case of Baker v. Carr, commonly known as the Tennessee Legislative Reapportionment Case requiring the one-man, one-vote as applied in setting up State legislative districts. We know of the Court's decision in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, which extended the doctrine of the one-man, one-vote to the setting up of districts for the election of Members of the House of Representatives. Since the 17th Article of Amendment was enacted subsequent to the 14th, it is pleasant to suppose that we Senators are safely beyond the reach of the Court. But, when one considers how far the actual election of a President and Vice President has in fact departed from the electoral college concept written into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers, a serious question is presented.

Arthur M. Schlesinger, in his book "Paths to the Present," describes what happened in this language:

What demoted the electoral college from a deliberative body to a puppet show was the rise of political parties. As people began taking sides on public questions, they were unwilling to leave the crucial choice of the Chief Executive to a sort of lottery. Instead, each party publicly announced its slate of electors and the candidate they would support. This usurpation of the electors' functions, though peaceably achieved, amounted to a coup d'etat. It was an amendment of the written Constitution by the unwritten constitution. The electors, while retaining the legal status of independence, became henceforth hardly more than men in livery taking orders from their parties.

In the opinion of many, of whom I am one, the Supreme Court of today has, in fact, acted in an extralegal and supraconstitutional manner. Acting as it has, would it not be entirely within the realm of possibility for the Supreme Court to assert its judicial power if it felt that great masses of citizens in these United States were being denied equal protection of the laws in having their vote for President and Vice President discarded because they failed to vote for the candidate or candidates that received the highest number of votes in their respective States.

In any event, it would be most appropriate for Congress and the States to implement the principle of fair and proportionate districting of areas from which public officers are to be elected by providing for the division of the electoral vote of a State in accordance with the proportionate vote by the candidate, and that is what my amendment would do, down to the thousandth point, but not beyond that point. The trials and tribulations of the electoral college system have differed from election to election. The election of 1948 dramatically illustrated how third party movements and splinter parties could so dilute the vote between candidates that the States' electoral vote would be cast to candidates receiving less than a majority of the popular vote. In the States of California, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, and Virginia where the total population vote amount to 19,985,102, the candidate carrying the entire State electoral vote for a total of 184, received less than a majority of the popular vote. There is no way to predict what will happen in regard to the future of third and splinter parties. But historically, one thing that is certain regarding national politics is the uncertainty of what will develop.

In the 1948 election in Florida, which I have the honor to present in part, 577,643 votes were cast. We are now casting 2 million or better. The Truman-Barkley ticket received 281,988 votes, or 49 percent of the total vote against 194,280 votes, or 33 percent of the total vote for the Dewey-Warren ticket: 89,755, or 16 percent, the total vote for the Thurmond-Wright ticket, and 11,620, or 2 percent of the total vote for the Wallace-Taylor ticket.

The Truman-Barkley ticket received all eight electoral votes, but under my resolution the total electoral vote would have been distributed the Truman-Barkley ticket receiving 3.9 electoral votes, the Dewey-Warren ticket receiving 2.6 of the electoral vote, the Thurmond-Wright ticket receiving 1.3 of the electoral vote and the WallaceTaylor ticket receiving 0.2 of the electoral vote. No voting citizen would have been disenfranchised.

In 1960 the presidential election was so close that the winning candidate received 49.7 percent of the popular vote and the losing candidate 49.5. Although there was only 2/10 of 1 percent difference in the popular vote, the electoral vote was 303 to 219 in favor of the leading candidate.

In the past election, President Nixon received 43.4 percent and former Vice President Humphrey received 42.7 percent of the popular vote. Although there was only 7/10 of 1 percent difference in the popular vote, the electoral vote was 301 to 191 in favor of President Nixon and the third party candidate received 46 electoral votes. There is obviously something wrong with a system that spells out an end result such as this when the popular vote of the two leading candidates is almost identical.

As a matter of interest to the committee, I have prepared a table showing the total electoral vote by State, the electoral vote received by each candidate in the last election and the electoral vote each candidate would have received under S.J. Res. 4. And I ask that that collation be copied in the record at this time.

Senator BAYH. Without objection it is so ordered.

(The tabulation referred to, consisting of two pages follows:)

[blocks in formation]

Senator HOLLAND. Another of the traditional and oft-repeated arguments against any character of electoral reform is that the South is a single party area and that the topheavy and overwhelming majorities it gives to Democratic candidates is unfair to the splits that exist elsewhere in the country. It is quite untimely to mention that point right now, Mr. Chairman, but it has been mentioned repeatedly in the past as one of the arguments against the adoption of the proportional election system.

Further, the point was made that the one-party system created such apathy in general national elections that only a fraction of the population turned out to vote. There have been fundamental changes in the voting patterns of Southern States that eliminate completely any validity that these arguments might contain against electoral reform. First, let us examine what has happened to the "one-party South" in the elections since electoral reform was last considered in the Senate. In the presidential election of 1956, Alabama cast 56.5 percent of its vote for the Democratic candidate, 39.4 percent for the Republican; Arkansas 52.5 percent Democratic, 45.8 percent Republican; Florida 42.7 percent Democratic, 57.3 percent Republican; Georgia 66.8 percent Democratic, 32.8 percent Republican; Louisiana 39.5 percent Democratic, 53.3 percent Republican, 7.2 percent unpledged; Mississippi 49.3 percent Democratic, 24.5 percent Republican, 17.3 percent unpledged; North Carolina 50.7 percent Democratic, 49.7 percent Republican; South Carolina, 45.4 percent Democratic, 25.2 percent Republican, 29.4 percent unpledged; Tennessee 48.6 percent Republican, 49.2 percent Democratic; Texas, 44.0 percent Democratic, 55.3 percent Republican; and Virginia 38.4 percent Democratic, 55.4 percent Republican.

In the 1960 presidential election, Alabama cast 56.9 percent Democratic votes, 41.8 percent Republican; Arkansas 50.2 percent Democratic, 43.1 Republican; Florida 48.5 percent Democratic, 51.5 percent Republican; Georgia 62.6 percent Democratic, 37.4 percent Republican; Louisiana 50.4 percent Democratic, 28.6 percent Republican, 21 percent Independent; Mississippi 36.32 percent Democratic, 24.7 percent Republican, 39 percent unpledged; North Carolina, 52.1 percent Democratic, 47.9 percent Republican; South Carolina 51.2 percent Democratic, 48.8 percent Republican; Tennessee 45.8 percent Democratic, 52.9 percent Republican; Texas 50.5 percent Democratic, 48.5 percent Republican; and Virginia 47 percent Democratic and 52.4 percent Republican.

In 1964 no votes were registered in Alabama for the Democratic candidates, the Republican received 69.54 percent of the total and the balance went to unpledged electors. In Arkansas the vote was 56.5 percent Democratic, 43.41 percent Republican; Florida 51.15 percent Democratic, 48.85 percent Republican; Georgia 45.88 percent Democratic, 54.12 percent Republican; Louisiana 43.19 percent Democratic, 56.81 percent Republican; Mississippi 12.86 percent Democratic, 87.14 percent Republican; North Carolina 56.15 percent Democratic, 43.85 percent Republican; South Carolina 41.1 percent Democratic, 58.9 percent Republican; Tennessee 55.6 percent Democratic, 44.4 percent Republican; Texas 63.46 percent Democratic, 36.54 Republican; and Virginia 53.82 percent Democratic, 46.18 Republican.

In the 1968 presidential election Alabama cast 18.6 percent Democratic votes, 14.1 percent Republican, 66 percent for the third party;

Arkansas 30.3 percent Democratic, 31 percent Republican, 38.7 percent third party; Florida 39.9 percent Democratic, 40.5 Republican, 28.6 percent third party; Georgia 27 percent Democratic, 29.7 percent Republican, 43.3 percent third party; Louisiana 28.2 percent Democratic, 23.5 percent Republican, 48.3 percent third party; Mississippi 23 percent Democratic, 13.5 percent Republican, 63.5 percent third party; North Carolina 29.2 percent Democratic, 39.5 percent Republican, 31.3 percent third party; South Carolina 29.6 percent Democratic, 38.1 percent Republican, 32.3 percent third party; Tennessee 28.1 percent Democratic, 37.8 percent Republican, 34.1 percent third party; Texas 41.1 percent Democratic, 39.9 percent Republican, 19 percent third party; Virginia 32.5 percent Democratic, 43.4 percent Republican, 23.6 percent third party.

These percentages reflect a very healthy balance between the two major parties in the Southern States. In the foreseeable future there is no reason to assume that the pattern will change. In fact, there are indications that the Republican Party will continue to grow and thrive in the South. On the other side of the coin, there has been a marked change of voting habits in those States that were formerly famous for their rockribbed republicanism, such as Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. In the 1964 election the Democratic candidate carried Maine 262,224 to 118,701. Johnson carried New Hampshire 182,065 to 104,029. He carried Vermont 107,674 to 54,868. In 1968, Humphrey carried Maine 217,312 to 169,254, while New Hampshire and Vermont were carried by President Nixon by 154,903 to 130,589 and 85,142 to 70,255 respectively. The two-party system is now very clearly a reality throughout the entire United States in presidential elections.

Competition between the parties for votes, coupled with the elimination of the poll tax as a prerequisite in voting in the election of national officers and the application of the voting rights provisions of the various Civil Rights Act, resulted in a marked increase in the total number of votes cast in the general election for President and Vice President. In a few more elections, there will be no substantial difference between the percentage of the total vote cast in Southern States from that cast in other areas of the United States.

As I previously stated, I can endorse, to a degree, the proposal contained in President Nixon's message of February 20, 1969. However, I cannot give carte blanche approval to his recommendations as they contain a provision for a runoff election by popular vote for the Presiident and Vice President, between the top two candidates, in the event no Presidential slate receives 40 percent or more of the electoral vote in the regular election.

This method of electing the President and Vice President would delay materially the election of the President and Vice President. and would add greatly to the cost of elections. And this provision also adopts the plan for election by national popular vote, with which I am in total disagreement in the second election. I cannot think of anything that would be more encouraging to the formation of splinter parties or third parties than this feature in the President's proposal. I am in total disagreement with this part of the President's program, the encouragement which this part of the program would give to formation of third parties and splinter parties is self-evident. That third party effort might be based on genuine interest in the new program, in the new platform of a candidate, or might be fomented by

« 上一頁繼續 »