Senator HOLLAND. It would be the Congress elected in the election. Senator HRUSKA. And which would convene on January 6 or in that week?

Senator HOLLAND. It would have to be that, because the time of the report of the electoral vote is fixed at such a time that it comes in January following the election.

Senator HRUSKA. And that would be the most recent voice of the people. It would reflect the most recent appraisal of the sentiment of the people as of that time?

Senator HOLLAND. It would be the last expression of the voice of the people. By districts, yes, because every Congressman would have a voice, and by States, because every Senator would have a vote.

The two Senators would have no more vote than would the two-or let us put it this way. No one Senator would have any greater vote than any one Representative, and I think it comes nearer carrying out the concept of the dual sovereignty, which is the ingrained thing in our Constitution which has meant so much to us as a nation than any other method we could adopt, the Senate and the House, meeting together, to select both President and Vice President, and do it on a majority basis with a one-man one-vote principle applying among them, whether they be Senators or Representatives.

Senator HRUSKA. And it is the way to reflect most nearly, the approximate proportion of the popular vote, isn't that true?

Senator HOLLAND. That is correct, except that it does not approach the simon-pure popular vote based solely on population, because it still maintains the dignity of statehood, the status of the States, because the two Senators would participate in that selection of the President and Vice President and in the case, where no one had received 40 percent of the total electoral weight, the Senators would participate just as would the House Members.

Senator HRUSKA. One final question, and that has to do with comments on the Daniel compromise of 1956, where there was an attempt made to let each State decide how to divide its electoral vote among the candidates, or between the candidates, either by the district plan or by the proportional plan. Is that a practical way?

Senator HOLLAND. I do not think so, because it does away entirely with the proportional system in the case of those States who select the district system, because in each district it would be a winner-takeall election, and in the State as a whole it would be a winner-take-all election as to the two votes that were there.

I do not favor that winner-take-all proceeding, because it disenfranchises enormous numbers of citizens who will feel, because it is true, that their vote just is not counted in the final decision.

Senator HRUSKA. Suppose it were a choice between having that kind of an arrangement and retaining what we now have, or of going to a direct, popular vote?

Senator HOLLAND. I would certainly prefer the district method, which does preserve the weight of the States, because under that method there are two electoral votes assigned to the States as such, but I still think that method is not to be preferred to the proportional system, because in each case, either in every district or in the State as a whole, the matter is left on a winner-take-all basis.

Senator HRUSKA. Of course under the district requirement, that winner-take-all basis is diluted somewhat, isn't it?

Senator HOLLAND. Right.

Senator HRUSKA. But not as much, as I understand it, as under the proportional plan?

Senator HOLLAND. That is right. I prefer the proportional plan first. If we cannot get that, I would support the district plan, which is not really solely a district plan, because it retains the two votes for each State, but either of them, in my mind, is vastly preferable to the popular election plan, and I believe that either of them is preferable to the present method of drafting in the original Constitution.

Senator HRUSKA. I want to thank the Senator for his patience in answering these questions and making these comments. I venture, again, the judgment that his testimony here will go far toward achieving a point of view in the Congress which will be sound and which will be workable. I thank you.

Senator BAYH. Thank you very much, Senator Holland, for taking the time to be with us.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you, Senator.

Senator BAYH. Senater Goldwater, you have been very patient. We are looking forward to your testimony also, sir.

Our next witness is the distinguished junior Senator from Arizona

Senator HOLLAND. I thank the committee.

Senator BAYH. The next witness is the junior Senator from Arizona who has had a chance to view this presidential election machine as few members of the Senate and few citizens of the country have had. We are very glad he has the time to present his views to us.

Senator Goldwater, we are glad to have you with us today, sir. Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF HON. BARRY GOLDWATER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Senator GOLDWATER. I thank the chairman and members of the committee. It has been most interesting to sit here listening to my learned colleague from Florida discuss this matter from a legal standpoint. I approach it more as a layman, not being a lawyer.

I want to express my appreciation at being given this time to share with all of you some brief views on the various plans for changing the electoral college system.

Having been my party's nominee for President in 1964, I perhaps have had more reason than other Members of the Congress to examine the working of the electoral college and the various proposals for changing that system. I hasten to explain at the outset that no matter how this system is changed and no matter how the method of computing electoral votes is adjusted, none of the proposed alterations would have provided me with sufficient votes 4 years ago to put me in the White House. So you can understand that there is nothing retroactively personal in my observations. But following that election in 1964, as I said often, I had a sabbatical of 4 years, and I devoted a lot of time during that period to wondering if we were on the right track in the electoral college, and also got into some things that you are not interested in here, but I know that you have concern about, the way our parties pick delegates, the way we conduct conventions, the fact

that there are millions of Americans who cannot vote for President or Vice President, and I have recently introduced an amendment which I think will take care of that, and even going so far as to discuss with myself and others whether it might not be wise to have an election day 24 hours in length, all on central time, so you can see I have spent some of those years worrying.

I am sure you are all acquianted with the fact that our electoral college system has not been changed since the 12th amendment to the Constitution was approved in 1804. I also do not feel that it would serve any useful purpose to take up your time with yet another recital of the dangerous risk which retention of the old system forced us to run in 1968. It is sufficient to remark that we came very close to a situation which would have deadlocked our presidential contest and literally paralyzed the conduct of essential Government business.

Out of all the discussion and research and study that has gone into this problem, three principal plans have been evolved by persons interested in electoral reform. Briefly they are:

(1) The direct election plan which would abolish the electoral college and have the selection of President rest entirely on the receipt of a majority of the popular vote cast nationwide.

(2) The so-called proportional system which would provide that the electoral votes of each State be automatically distributed to candidates in proportion to the percentage of popular votes they received in that State. This plan also would abolish the electoral college while retaining the electoral vote.

(3) The so-called district plan, long championed by my esteemed friend and colleague, Senator Karl Mundt of South Dakota, which provides that the electoral vote of each State shall be divided among single-elector districts in each State. Under this proposal one elector would be selected for each congressional district and the vote would be cast by this elector on the basis of the election outcome to his district. This procedure would replace the present system wherein the entire electoral vote of one State is given in a lump to the candidate with the most statewide votes. The district plan also would provide for each State to have two electoral representatives chosen on an atlarge basis.

In other words, only two electors in a given State would be governed by the overall vote. The remainder would be governed by the ote in each district.

The district plan would require each candidate for party elector to declare officially the candidates for whom he will vote. It further legally binds him to vote for that candidate if he is elected.

Mr. Chairman, there are two features in this plan, often referred to as the Mundt plan, which I believe especially recommend it. One is the fact that by district representation the vote of the State will be more accurately proportionate than is possible under the present system. The second point, and this is especially important to members from States the size of my State of Arizona and that is that the district plan gives more weight to the vote cast in the smaller States. The addition of the two at-large electors to the number of district. electors preserve for 36 of the present 50 States the slight advantage they presently have.

Another significant feature of this plan provides a procedure to be followed if no candidate should receive a majority in the electoral college, such procedures being to transfer to both the Senate and House, in joint assembly, the election of the President. At the present time, of course, such a situation would throw an election into the House of Representatives. The Mundt plan would add the Senate membership and provide each of those sitting in the joint session with one vote. Consequently, the Senate would have a voice in the procedure in the event of a deadlock situation.

Despite these changes, Mr. Chairman, the district plan still retains the electoral college system, and I believe this is an especially important factor.

Let me say I have considered the three plans very carefully and I have concluded that only one-the district plan incorporated in S.J Res. 12-has a chance for adoption. The direct voting plan has some features to recommend it. However, I believe it would be impossible to obtain its acceptance in enough States to insure its adoption, and you may judge that as a purely political viewpoint, but I think reform of the electoral process is very important, and I think it is important that it be done in this Congress, and I am looking at the possibility of getting enough votes to go along with an amendment to go into the direct vote.

I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that the American people are entirely ready to abolish the electoral college system. Even though it has many obvious faults the system is deeply rooted in American history and tradition. Many of our citizens regard it as an essential part of the federal system, an attitude referred to some years ago by President Johnson.

I believe it might interest the subcommittee to learn how the electoral votes would have been allocated in 1960 and 1964 under the district plan and proportional system.

If the district plan had been in effect in 1964 and had been based on congressional district lines, President Johnson would have received 466 electoral votes, and I would have received 72. This would be an increase of 20 for me over the actual result.

If the district plan had been in effect in 1960, Richard Nixon would have been elected president with 280 electoral votes to 254 for John Kennedy, with three votes going to others. This would represent an increase of 61 votes for Mr. Nixon.

If the proportional system had been effective in 1964, President Johnson would have received 313 electoral votes to 218 for me and seven others. This would have been an increase of 166 votes for my candidacy.

If the proportional system had been in effect in 1960, John Kennedy would have received 266.136 electoral votes to 263.662 for Richard Nixon and 7.202 for others. The Nixon vote would have increased by 44.662 votes.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. If there are any questions, I shall be happy to try to answer them.

Senator BAYH. Thank you very much, Senator Goldwater. I would like in perhaps some more appropriate forum, inasmuch as this hearing deals primarily with constitutional amendments, to have a chance to discuss personally with you your attitude about delegate

selection, and the idea of a 24-hour voting period, which has a great deal of appeal to me. I certainly would like to have your thoughts on those matters.

I would like to compliment you, and I should have mentioned this to my friend from Florida. I think the practical aspect of which system can pass has to be taken into consideration. Any of us who are in the field of legislation realize that the art of our trade is not only in recommending improvements but recommending improvements that have the possibility of being enacted or incorporated. It is difficult in our system to amend the Constitution. That is as it should be.

But in this particular area, history has shown us it is doubly difficult, because we are exposing the ultimate political power of the system, namely the power of the President. So I do not want to make light of the assessment that the Senator from Florida made, you made, or the Senator from Nebraska made, but I think this is one of the things that we have to consider.

In looking at the tremendous increase, at least as judged by both Mr. Gallup and Mr. Harris, of insistence on the part of the people that they want to have the right to vote for President. Perhaps it is either idealistic or naive, one or the other, to believe that if a significant enough number of people under our system want something that they are permitted to express themselves.

Let me just ask a couple of questions that I think you are uniquely able to deal with from a personal standpoint. Obviously, and I do not want to ask this to be in any way embarrassing, but I mean you are one of the two men who had a chance to be President of the United States in 1964, and I am certain that the awesome power that resides in the Presidency must have entered your mind.

I relate back to a reference I made a moment ago, that in October our present President referred to the great difficulty a President would have, dealing with sending mothers' sons to Vietnam and trying to deal with the problems of unrest in the country and all the other problems effectively, if he had fewer votes than the man he was running against. Your figures here reveal, although it was a very close election, depending upon whose figures you take, the outcome was a bit different, but it is generally accepted, John Kennedy probably got in the neighborhood of 100,000 more votes than Řichard Nixon.

Yet if the other system had been in effect, the non-popular-vote winner would have been elected President by a significant margin. Now what position do you feel the President of the United States would be in? This is the real compelling thing. I realize there are weaknesses about the direct system. There are weaknesses about all systems that are put together by man.

Senator GOLDWATER. Well, in answer to that question, I would have to agree that it would be difficult for a President to serve at the outset at least with the proper power and with the authority that the office carries if he was in effect a minority candidate, but if this system goes in, I do not see us maintaining a two-party system any longer. In fact, we now have three parties, and from what I hear, we have three. The direct vote to my mind would just open the door, and we would wind up with maybe five or six eventual candidates running, in which case you might have one man receiving the majority, but you would also have 29-018-69- -11