網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

this country is the rule that the man who gets the most votes ought to win, and I think this is imperative.

I hope that as a result of the discussions that we have in this committee, and across this country, most people will come to realize that we have imperfections in the present system.

I think we need to look at this system as it actually works. This concern about the big city bosses and the concern over small States losing a mathematical advantage that they now have, in the opinion of the junior Senator from Indiana overlooks the obvious fact that in planning for presidential campaigns not a great deal of attention is given to these small States. Right now the attention is devoted to those large States with sizable bloc of electoral votes under the unit rule they can deliver these blocs of votes on the basis of the barest pluralities. None of us here like it, but the only way we are going to get these States to give up their advantage is to have a quid pro quo, by which we purify the entire system and change so that both the large and the small States will be of a mind to go along with us.

I would just suggest a couple of other thoughts, and then I want to end this prolonged discourse. I wanted to make the record clear and did not want the fact that I remained mute to some of the very telling arguments of my colleagues to be interpreted by some latter-day scholar as acquiescence in the good judgment of the argument. The politics of passing an amendment, I think, is a fundamental point. The Senator from North Carolina is absolutely right, although I respectfully suggest that the argument can be made the other way. That where it is necessary to get three-fourths of the State legislatures, it is also necessary to have a plan which can be presented to both large and small State legislative bodies on an equitable basis. Senator Burdick, our distinguished colleague from North Dakota, polled the State legislatures a few years ago and reported a substantial majority of our State legislators said they would support a plan that gave people the right to vote for their President.

Nobody knows what is going to happen in the State legislatures. Nobody knows what is going to happen in the Senate. Nobody knows what is going to happen in this Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments. So why not adopt the plan we think is best.

If you want to proceed further, we can, or we can listen to our witness. We will follow your lead.

Senator ERVIN. I would like to make a few observations about yours. You say that your system, that is S.J. Res. 1, will diminish the powers of the big States, which is rather paradoxical to me because the way it does, it takes the power away from 36 States, an increased voice in the election of a President to 14 States.

You also assert that your method would provide for minority presidents by the majority vote. It does not do anything of the kind. It provides for the election of presidents by 40 percent of the votes. The advantage of my plan, I kept the best of the old and take a part of the new that can be added without doing violence to our system of Government and, therefore, I think mine is the best of all three plans. Senator BAYH. I would like to suggest that before we are too critical of the 40-percent provision, that we recognize it was part of both of our suggestions.

Senator ERVIN. Yes.

Senator BAYH. The only difference is mine suggests we should have 40 percent of the people and the Senator from North Carolina suggests 40 percent of the electoral votes.

Senator ERVIN. The advantage of mine, in the overwhelming majority of the elections the candidate for President who is elected would be a man who receives the majority of the popular vote and also a majority of the votes of the States. Under your plan conceivably the State of California and the State of New York alone could elect the President of the United States and the other States have no voice in his election

Senator BAYH. Can the Senator, in all his wisdom, actually consider a practical case in which two of our States can by themselves elect a President of the United States? We have got to get right down to the facts.

Senator ERVIN. No, but in casting the vote, 49 of the States can vote by a majority of one vote for President, and the majority in the other State can be decisive.

Senator BAYH. That is right. There is no perfect system. This discussion, as it has developed, seems to me to break down along the lines of those who believe that the States are an absolute indispensable ingredient in electing a president, whether we are electing a President of the United 50 States, or whether we are electing a President of some 200 million Americans. Admittedly, my case must be based on the fact that I feel we are electing a President of the people of this country, and when the majority of the people of this country, regardless of where they live, say, "This man is our choice for President," then he ought to be President.

Senator ERVIN. Well, from the standpoint of just using a little English language, the President is the President of the United States, not of the people.

Senator BAYH. Is there further discussion here?

Senator ERVIN. No more.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, does it not boil down to the fact whether you want a democracy or a republic? We now have a Republic. The question is whether we shall keep it.

Senator BAYH. I respectfully disagree. The argument does not boil down to that. I think we can have our Republic, as we should, and maintain the Federal system by having two Members of the United States Senate where each State is represented equally, and let the people choose the President. In my judgment, that is what our Founding Fathers meant by the federal system, and I am glad we have had this opportunity to discuss an important aspect of the electoral reform.

Dr. Bailey, now that you have been baptized under fire, we are indeed grateful to you for being here.

I have talked to Dr. Bailey and our staff has been in consultation with him, and I would like the record to show, without going into detail, that Dr. Bailey came here at some considerable sacrifice because of serious illness in his family. We are deeply indebted to him for coming.

The first decision that confronted this Congress was the unusual one of validating Dr. Bailey's electoral vote. Dr. Bailey became the center of a rather heated controversy in both Houses. Much was said about the wisdom of his decision not to vote for Richard Nixon, who

carried his State, but rather to vote for another candidate for President. In the tradition of our country, and I hope this committee, it was my opinion as chairman that inasmuch as his motives and his actions were at issue, that he indeed should have the right to present his opinion for all to hear and all to see. We may agree or disagree, but I think an indispensable part of our democratic process is the right to let everyone have his say.

Dr. Bailey, we are very anxious to hear what you have to say.
Thank you for your patience.

STATEMENT OF DR. LLOYD BAILEY, PRESIDENTIAL ELECTOR FROM
NORTH CAROLINA

Dr. BAILEY. Thank you, Senator Bayh.

I would like to preface my remarks first by saying that as it became apparent that I would be coming before you I naturally did a great deal of reading about the subject and the thing that impressed me most was that you gentlemen have a tremendous job. I will go ahead now and read the statement which I prepared.

Gentlemen, I was requested to prepare a statement for you prior to the hearing which I was invited to attend. It is to me an honor to have this opportunity to present to you some thoughts which I have about the current status of the electoral college. It has been made. abundantly clear to me in recent weeks that there are opposing views, but I sincerely feel that the best interest of our Republic can be served only by having reasonable men objectively consider all views which are presented with the constructive intent. With the dangers which are threatening the United States today, it is impossible for me to dissociate a discussion of the electoral college from political ambitions or obligations, it is easier for me to openly discuss this than it might be for some others.

I do not hesitate to say that I approach this as one whose first interest is the preservation of our republican form of Government and the unprecedented freedom which we have enjoyed under it. It is my opinion that this precious heritage has been bestowed upon recent generations so cheaply that far too few of us appreciate it or have even thought seriously about it. The lessons of history clearly show to us that those who do not constantly defend their freedom do not long remain free. It is my intention to firmly oppose, in any honorable way available to me, all efforts or appearances of efforts to subvert our Nation under a one-world government. With these introductory remarks, my position should be clear and my opinions and actions might be more easily understood.

I attended the district convention of the Republican Party of the Second North Carolina District on February 10, 1968, knowing that I would be proposed for nomination to the position of presidential elector. I did not seek this position, but I did not decline it. In fact, it was taken quite lightly with little thought that the Republican Party could win North Carolina. The Republican Party was, for the first time, becoming a factor in the Second Congressional District, and we were in the position of having to find people to fill every office in the party structure. No one else was proposed for presidential elector, so I was nominated. This was a number of months before we even

knew who the presidential nominees would be. There was no discussion of party loyalty, there was no pledge.

Senator ERVIN. I might interject to say I was elected to the Senate in 1954 under those circumstances. Nobody else would run and I think it is the most pleasant way to run for political office.

Senator BAYH. If our witness would yield? I envy both of them for having that experience.

Dr. BAILEY. There was no pledge and there was no commitment made to any candidate. In the ensuing campaign I preferred Senator Thurmond or Governor Reagan to President Nixon. After the national conventions were held, I supported Governor Wallace, and I voted for him in the general election. I, along with many, was surprised that the Republican Party won in North Carolina. As an example of how lightly the position of Republican elector was taken, I had even forgotten that I was the elector until I was reminded of it by Dr. Stroud, the Second District Republican chairman, shortly before the general election. I did not think much more about being an elector until President Nixon began making appointments 2 weeks or so before the scheduled meeting of the electoral college. The names of men whose records I am familiar with began appearing in the news as appointees to high advisory positions for the executive branch of our Government; that forced me to realize that we are not going to get the changes in policy which we need and the electorate has so clearly shown that it wants.

One of these men, Mr. Robert D. Murphy, was presented by the press as being one "who believes in taking a no-nonsense stand in the face of Communist threats." The record shows that in Lebanon and in the Dominican Republic, Communist regimes rose to power shortly after his presence in those countries. As President Roosevelt's personal envoy in Algeria, he told the Algerian Nationalists in 1942 that the end of colonialism was an American goal. Now, they have communism. This is not to say that he is responsible for these occurrences, but it certainly doesn't make him stand out as a successful anti-Communist diplomat.

Mr. Henry A. Kissinger, Mr. Paul W. McCracken, and Mr. Daniel Moynihan are other appointees who, along with Mr. Murphy, are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Moynihan is even on the national board of Americans for Democratic Action and was one of the authors of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. The Council on Foreign Relations, called "The Invisible Government" by Dan Smoot in his book by this title, is an organization which seeks to undermine our national sovereignty and merge us with other nations under a one-world government, perhaps like the United Nations. Since the 1950's, men who are members of this internationalist organization have managed to have themselves appointed to the highest policymaking positions in our Government, regardless of which party was in office. The goals of the Council on Foreign Relations appear to be uncomfortably close to those of the international Communist criminal conspiracy.

At about that time, President Nixon endorsed the Johnson no-win policy in Vietnam which includes our Government supplying, directly or indirectly, about 80 percent of the materials which the Communist enemy has to use against our own men. He also asked Chief Jus

tice Earl Warren to remain in his position until June 1969. No reasons whatsoever can justify imposing him upon the American people for another term of the Supreme Court. At about the same time, efforts were made in the name of the Nixon administration to test the response of the public to a permanent income surtax. These are the incidents which awakened me from the slumber which would have directed my vote to be cast for President Nixon.

Another fact which could not be ignored was the overwhelming victory by Governor Wallace in my congressional district. He polled 46.1 percent of the vote, Vice President Humphrey had 31.6 percent, and President Nixon was third with 22.3 percent. This left no doubt about the wishes of the people in the district. Should they have been denied under a representative system of government?

With this information, I realized that it was incumbent upon me to make a decision based upon loyalty to my country rather than loyalty to my political party. As you might imagine, it was not the easiest course to take, and it was not taken without serious thought.

It was all too clear that the consequences might not be pleasant. It was obvious that the opponents of the electoral college would use my vote as ammunition in their attempts to abolish it. However, I wanted to emphasize the importance of the electoral college in our form of government, and it seemed that far too few citizens had an adequate. understanding of it. The electoral college is much more vital to our Republic today than it was when it was conceived by our Founding Fathers. As I understand it, they established it because it gave to the individual States the right to select our President, and an equally important reason for it is that, due to poor means of communication, a very small percentage of the population had access to information which would permit them to vote intelligently. Electors were intended to be chosen from those citizens who were informed about affairs of state. Today, we have a far worse situation as far as an informed electorate is concerned, for some are not only uninformed, but most are intentionally misinformed. I am sure that all of you readily see how our mass communications media can be used to mold public opinion. We all know that this is being done. A vivid example of this is the treatment which my own electoral vote received. If my vote was so newsworthy that it was reported by most of the newspapers, radio stations, and television stations, then the reasons for the vote were equally newsworthy. I freely gave this information to the Associated Press, the United Press International, television stations and radio stations.

It is interesting that every remark which I made about the differences between Republics and democracies and all references to the fact that our Government is supplying Communist troops who are fighting our men were cut from television films. I requested equal time from the National Broadcasting Television Network to reply to the derogatory remarks made about me by Senator Muskie and Representative O'Hara on television, and a copy of this telegram was sent to the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. That was on January 4, and I have yet to hear from it.

Newspapers did not receive my statement from the wire services. A member of the editorial board of the New York Times called me and requested a copy of my statement explaining my vote. I gladly sent it,

« 上一頁繼續 »