ePub 版

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 gov. ernment, 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 rery 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 Fote 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 4th, 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, along with a copy of the "Invisible Government" by Dan Smoot which he also requested. They did print a lead editorial condemning me and the electoral college, but if they printed my statement at all, it was well hidden because I watched for it for ten days. How could the citizens of the country form an opinion about this intelligently if they were told only one side of the story? This is the reason that the electoral college is more important in present-day elections than it was at the time that the Constitution was written.

The electoral college is also a guarantee that the minority voice can be heard. If it is abolished, it will become infinitely more difficult for a third political party to become influential on the national scene. Who is it who would deny the American citizens the right to vote as they wish? Interestingly, many of the same men who claim to represent minority groups at election times are the very ones who are trying to abolish the electoral college.

Our nation was founded, has prospered, and survived as a Republic. By far the most important point which I would like to bring to your attention is the fact that if the electoral college is abolished or emasculated, we will be transformed by the same stroke of the pen into a political democracy. Our founding fathers went to great lengths to keep us from having a democracy because they knew that no democracy in history has survived. Yet, we are dangerously close to becoming one today on the national level. The definition of democracy as given in the 1928 United States Army Training Manual is as follows:

"A Government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communisticnegating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.'

In the 1952, “The Soldier's Guide," Department of the Army Field Manual, it had been changed as follows:

"Meaning of democracy. Because the United States is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how our government will be organized and runand that includes the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The people do this by electing representatives, and these men and women then carry out the wishes of the people.”

This is very strange indeed.

Until 1913, United States Senators were elected by their respective state legislative bodies, and they represented their state governments in their relationships with the federal government. The senators were responsible to the state government, a relatively small and organized body of men, rather than to the people of the state in general. This is an extremely important distinction to make, for now the state governments are not represented at the federal level in a like manner. This change was the first of two big steps which will change our Republic into a democracy. The other steps will be abolition or emasculation of the electoral college. I think that if this information were presented to the American people, they would strongly favor preserving the electoral college.

In closing, I have found that holding the office of Elector is a very responsible position, and it should not be taken lightly as is the case today. It demands timeconsuming study, fortitude, total allegiance to our country, and a love of all that we hold dear in our American way of life. I am appealing to your good judgment and your own love of country, with the hope that you will seriously consider the possibility of restoring Presidential Electors to the positions which they were originally intended to hold. It is my sincere belief that it will serve the best interests of our country, and that our generation will be able to pass it on to our heirs stronger than it was when we inherited it. Sincerely yours,



Rocky Mount, N.C. As the Republican elector for the Second Congressional District of North Carolina, I would like to briefly focus attention upon the issues which have developed as a result of my vote for Governor Wallace in the electoral college on December 16th. The primary reason for my vote was to protest the fact that President-elect Nixon is obviously not going to change the course of our government in spite of the overwhelming vote in the general election against the policies of the Johnson Administration. The first appointments by Mr. Nixon are adequate proof of this. I realized that those who are trying to abolish the electoral college would use my vote as ammunition against it but I hoped that it would afford an opportunity to publicize the fact, which they do not want revealed, that the electoral college is one of the constitutional guarantees which prevents the silencing of political minorities. Strangely, these are the same politicians who claim to represent minorities at election time.

Governor Wallace won the election in my district overwhelmingly, so it was my moral obligation to represent these voters in the electoral college. Under the present system, the State Legislatures manage the elections, but if the electoral college is abolished, the Federal Government will control national elections, and this is their goal. Can you imagine how it would be if President Lyndon Johnson were running for re-election and counting his own votes? Our founding fathers went to great lengths to give us a Republic instead of a Democracy, because history showed to them that no Democracy had long survived. I agree that the electoral college should be changed so that electors must represent their districts, but if it is abolished we will be taking a big step toward a pure Democracy which is nothing but mob rule. The Constitution provides in Article II Section I that State Legislatures control their respective electors. Senator Muskie and Representative O'Hara are interfering in the affairs of the Legislature of the State of North Carolina in the challenge of my vote in Congress on Monday. They have no more authority for doing this than I have for interfering with their activities in Washington. I regret that my vote has caused so much controversy, but I sincerely hope that it will strengthen our Republic for our children and theirs who will follow.



Rocky Mount, N.C., January 4, 1969. DIRECTOR, NBC TELEVISION NEWS, Rockefeller Plaza, Veic York, N.Y.

DEAB SB: Under the Fairness Doctrine of the Federal Communications Commission, I would like to request equal time from the National Broadcasting Tele. vision Network to answer the derogatory remarks made about me by Senator Muskie and Representative O'Hara. Sincerely yours,




This appears to be an attempt to suppress a minority viewpoint and it is exactly what we can expect from those who are trying to abolish the electoral college. The electoral college guarantees minority representation, and those in power obviously don't wish to be bothered by minority views. This is an example of a democracy in which the majority suppresses the minority, as opposed to our republican form of government in which a minority is supposed to be respected and not trampled under foot.

Can there be any other reason for two left-wing Democrats to be concerned about a Republican president-elect's votes?

This further shows to us that the same conspirators are calling the plays, regardless of which party is in power. The one thing which they fear is that enough American citizens will learn about their activities while there is still time to stop their treasonous acts. A good example of this is the way in which my statement has been generally kept from the public by the news media. Its contents might kindle the interest of too many good Americans.

[From the Rocky Mount (N.C.) Telegram, Jan. 8, 1969)


In the widespread and often ill-considered attacks upon Dr. Lloyd Bailey because of his decision to cast his electoral vote for George Wallace instead of Richard Nixon, a lot of people overlooked one vital fact: Dr. Bailey violated no constitutional mandate, for as Sen. Sam Ervin pointed out, the language of the Constitution is as plain as it is possible to be for all who can read the English language.

The U.S. Constitution, according to Ervin, who is regarded as a constitutional espert, made electors "free agents." They are bound by no provisions to cast their votes for the same man chosen by popular vote. To be sure, it has been traditional to do so, and most electors do, but tradition does not make it law.

As for Dr. Bailey, he hopes his action will focus attention on the value of the electoral college and “our form of government." As he noted, our form of government is not yet a democracy, but a Republic. The goal of those who are insistent upon destroying the electoral college is to replace our present form of government with a democracy.

"The most vital point in this whole issue is that if the electoral college is now abolished," said Bailey, "we will have a pure democracy and no democracy in history has survived."

It may well be that some changes ought to be made in the electoral college. But such changes ought to be made to strengthen it, not abolish it. For example, Bailey and numerous others believe the best system would be to permit electoral college members to cast their votes for the presidential candidate who collected the most popular votes in their (the electors) districts.

This is what happened in our own district, which was captured by George Tallace. Dr. Bailey felt he was expressing the wishes of a majority of the voters when he cast his vote for Wallace. The Republican district committee upheld Bailey's action.

The entire North Carolina delegation voted against the Muskie-O'Hara drive to disallow the Bailey vote and give it to Nixon. Many of the Tar Heel law

makers perhaps disagreed with Bailey's action, but they upheld his right to take that action. So did State Board of Elections Chairman Alex Brock and Assistant State Attorney General James Broughton.

The crux of the entire affair is that Congress does not have a right to change the votes of the electoral college. Its duty is to count the votes, nothing more. If it wishes to revise the constitutional provisions on the matter, then Congress must move to get a constitutional amendment approved by the people.

Dr. Bailey proved his point quite clearly in the unprecedented debate and vote taken in Congress on Monday.

Senator THURMOND. My experience has been that the local radio stations and TV's will be much fairer and present your views better than the networks. If your position in it is not in accord with the policymakers of the networks then you won't get their attention.

Dr. BAILEY. That is right.
If the local stations and papers can get the news, they would print it.

Senator THURMOND. The networks are going to present what they want to and they are going to censor what they want to.

Dr. BAILEY. That is the way it seems.

Senator THURMOND. I think those are all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. I wish to express my appreciation this morning to Dr. Bailey for coming here and taking his time especially in view of the illness, I understand, of his family. We appreciate very much your presence.

Dr. BAILEY. Thank you.

Senator Bayh. If you have some more time I would like to further explore some of your thoughts, Dr. Bailey?

Dr. BAILEY. Certainly.

Senator Bayil. As I understand it, the State law of North Carolina requires that the party shall choose the electors but that only the major candidates or the presidential candidates' names themselves appear on the ballot. Is that correct?

Dr. BAILEY. That is correct.

Senator Bayu. Do you think it is important to have the candidates— all of the candidates—conduct nationwide campaigns based on an appeal to the people of this country, telling the people what they think the issues are and how they can be met?

Dr. Bailey. Well, let me say, first, I don't pretend to know all the answers. That is why I am not in your position of having this problem.

Senator Bayu. I don't know all the answers either. I won't speak for either one of my two colleagues but I certainly don't know all the answers.

Dr. BAILEY. But I do have some opinions about this. I think it is certainly advantageous to the people to know who the major candidates are and what they believe if the information can be disseminated. I think that one of our biggest problems is getting information to the people and having a truly informed electorate. If that could be done, I think that our whole country would probably be different today.

Senator Bayi. The thing that concerned me about your decision to vote for Mr. Wallace was that it effectively denied any voice to the people who voted for Mr. Nixon, and these people went to the polls on the assumption that a vote for Mr. Nixon's electoral slate would be a vote for Mr. Nixon. These are the rules of the game.

This, in essence, disfranchised all of the people of the Second District of North Carolina who voted for Nixon because there wasn't any way at all that their votes could be counted because the person who represents them was Lloyd Bailey, who eventually voted for George Wallace.

This is my concern. I expressed it before the Senate earlier this year. I haven't tried to hide it.

How did you explain this to the people who wanted to vote for Dick Nixon in North Carolina and who could not count on you, as a Republican elector, when the votes were cast?

Dr. BAILEY. That is a hard question to answer because it is necessary to get into several points. The people in my district who voted for Nixon were 22, 23, I believe percent. There would have been more people in my district who would not have been represented had I done otherwise. I did represent by my vote 46.1 percent of the people in the district, and I was nominated by the district. It is true that the State elector, the totals of the State elected me, but my district nominated me.

Senator BAYH. May I explore that? In your statement you did mention the representative aspect of your role. You said you represented the people of your district. As you know, however, we don't have a district system, we have a statewide unit rule system.

In view of your feeling that you should represent the people of your district, how can you logically reply to Senator Thurmond's question that if this had meant the election of Hubert Humphrey, who ran second in your district and considerably ahead of President Nixon, that then the desire to represent either the man that carried the most votes or the second most would not be considered? On one hand you are concerned about representation and on the next you use different values.

Dr. BAILEY. You are exactly right. Then I would have had to fall back on my beliefs for what would be best for the country. I have spent a good bit of time studying this, I mean politics in general, policies of government in general, not just since I became an elector. I have been very interested in these matters for a number of years. I think that I have good information on which to base an opinion of that type. I know for a fact that there are many who for one reason or another don't have the information which might have influenced their votes and decided these percentages we are talking about. So there I would have had to stick my neck out for my country.

Senator Bayh. I think your desire to stick your neck out for your country is an admirable one. It is one I think that all my colleagues in the Senate share. This argument breaks down, with all due respect to you, on the interpretation of how one can best stick his neck out for his country.

Much of your statement was directed to the inability of the average voter to make a considered good faith, intelligent judgment. Is that correct?

Dr. BAILEY. Not the ability.
Senator Bayn. Under the present circumstances.

Dr. BAILEY. Under the present circumstances, yes, that is true. Unless a man has all of the facts and knows both sides of the question or argument there is no way he can arrive at a decision.

Senator Bayh. Do you believe then, as I think your statement said, that this type of decision is even more difficult to realize under present day conditions than it was back when our Founding Fathers established the Constitution?

« 上一頁繼續 »