« 上一頁繼續 »
Dr. BAILEY. I think so.
Senator BayH. In other words, despite the fact that we have radio and television, despite the fact that over these 200 years we now have a vast, comprehensive system of public school education, that you still feel we are in a worse position than we were 200 years ago?
Dr. BAILEY. I do. A man who has unlimited funds can get all the time he wants on television. If the people hear nothing but his point or if they hear his side 75 percent that certainly would have some bearing on the situation. I think it would be better for the people to know nothing than to have distorted news.
Senator Bays. Do you feel there is a national conspiracy of some kind, in which the news media is involved? You kept referring to the fact that, consistently, not only the New York Times but other papers cut out parts of your statement. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I sort of read between the lines, although you were very careful and did not say conspiracy, and if you wouldn't want to say it here I wouldn't want you to. Is this part of a big conspiracy in which we have news media trying to prevent things from happening or creating an attitude and environment in which certain things will happen?
Dr. BAILEY. Well, it would appear so. I cannot prove this but circumstantial evidence to me is pretty clear on this. If there is one thing that is important to the survival of our country it is to keep the republic from being changed into a democracy. As a republic this country has made unprecedented gains, has grown stronger, greater than any other country in the history of the world. Democracies, on the other hand, have fallen by the wayside and who would gain in this world if we would fall by the wayside? It can only point in one direction.
Senator BAYH. I differ with you in how we describe a republic. The main element of a republican form of government is that it is a representative form of government.
But be that as it may, let me pursue this business of voting intelligently. The basic ingredient of a government which is representative of the people is an election in which the people elect representatives. In presidential elections, the electors are chosen by the people. In other words, the only way an elector in the second district of North Carolina can be elected is by vote of the people, who, by your own definition, are not qualified to make that choice.
Now, to follow this through, the average voter also votes for U.S. Senator and for Governor, State legislators, and county officials.
Senator ERVIN. Let me interject, the voter voted in a highly intelligent manner for a U.S. Senator in this election. [Laughter.]
Senator Bays. I share that belief of the Senator from North Carolina completely.
Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, I was wondering, too, if as he has previously explained that there is a great difference in the vote of a majority in the whole Nation, composed of 50 States, and the vote for the candidates in a State. That is the very distinction our Constitution makes. In other words, the Constitution doesn't provide for a vote by the people of the whole Nation to elect a President. The States have the authority to provide that their Governor and State officers can be elected by a majority vote of the people. There are only two levels of government mentioned in the Constitution. The State and the Federal level. The States have further provided that the cities can select their mayors and so forth.
Now, in New Orleans you have parishes but there is a big distinction in the people of the State electing a head of government and the people in a nation electing a head of government. The Nation is composed of 50 States, and that is where we have the Federal system of government under the Constitution. So I just wanted to make that clear. I think that Dr. Bailey, as I conceive, from what he says, believes in the Federal type of system in which the people in each State control their own policies and then the States have a big say so in the Nation as to the policies that control.
But now if we are going to let the people of the whole Nation just act by a great majority just by number you have a difference between a Federal system and a straight democracy. That is what I object to and as I conceive what Dr. Bailey objects to. Am I right?
Dr. BAILEY. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. There is an old Latin expression-my Latin is very poor—"vox popularis esse vox deus," the voice of people is the voice of God. I agree that that is true every time the people agree with me, but when they disagree with me I have serious doubts about the truth of that statement. (Laughter.]
Senator BAYH. I don't want to leave this just yet, as I have some different opinions than our distinguished colleague from South Carolina. However, I think he undoubtedly expresses the philosophy behind Dr. Bailey's vote. I must say, very frankly, to make a distinction between the vote of 2 million people and the vote of 200 million people living in 50 States is to try to say there is a distinction between 12 and a dozen oranges. I think we are talking about basically the same thing. The thing that concerns me the most about this whole business, and it is a matter which I am sure Dr. Bailey and all of us would be glad to stop hearing about, that the average voter is not intelligent enough to make a choice for President. If we went one step further and say that there must be some question about his vote for U.S. Senator, which leads me to the real difficult. If he chooses an elector who he has no opportunity to vote for personally, but can only vote for him by voting for a presidential candidate, that is the real matter of concern.
Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, on the record at this point did he say—you said Dr. Bailey said he didn't have the intelligence. He didn't say that. Dr. Bailey said he didn't have the information. He probably has the intelligence and if he had the information he could draw maybe a sounder conclusion, as the elector would do. But on account of lacking the information that the elector might have, because the elector is in a position to obtain more information, then he is in a little different category; is that what you meant, Doctor?
Dr. BAILEY. Basically that is right.
Senator Bayh. Will the doctor yield; I would like to ask my colleague from South Carolina how that average voter is in a position to get the necessary information to vote for that one elector who is smarter than the other two electors that were running in North Carolina in the second congressional district?
Senator THURMOND. Well, Dr. Bailey made the statement, as I construe it, when he became an elector that he intended to vote for Nixon, and that when the election was over he intended to vote for Nixon but that later certain positions taken by Mr. Nixon caused him to change his opinion and vote for Mr. Wallace; is that correct, Dr. Bailey?
Dr. BAILEY. That is right. I took those positions
Senator THURMOND. You understand, of course, I was for Mr. Nixon all the way. I mean I want to make that clear. I think the position was clear on that, so we didn't agree on that. But I am just trying to help you get your position set out correctly here.
Dr. BAILEY. Well, it was automatic until these things came up which I took exception to, which made me begin to think independently about it. And this is the result.
Senator THURMOND. That was in the intervening period between the election and the time you cast your vote in the electoral college?
Dr. BAILEY. That is right.
Senator THURMOND. The November election and casting your vote in the electoral college in December or a month later?
Dr. BAILEY. It was when those things began to happen. Until then I just assumed automatically I would go up with the rest and just vote as they did because it was the thing to do, but then later it didn't appear that way to me.
Senator Bayn. But you did say that under the present system, the complete freedom of the elector, because of certain things that were making it more difficult for the individual voter to make the right judgment, that this independent right of the elector to do whatever he pleases is more necessary now than it was 200 years ago. Did you say that?
Dr. Bailey. I think so, under these circumstances.
On page 6 of your statement you made reference to the fact that unless we have the present system, with electoral votes, and with this freedom of the elector, it would be infinitely more difficult for a third political party to become influential on the national scene. Is my understanding correct, that you feel our political system is not best served by a strong two-party system?
Dr. BAILEY. Not necessarily. I think that what it boils down to is giving the people a choice every time. Of course, these are personal views, and everyone has his own idea about these things, but it appears to me there, our two major parties are really one, as puppets on a string controlled somewhere up there. They have come so close together in trying to outdo or outbid each other with different things, welfare funds and things like that, that they are really not presenting two different political philosophies for the people, and in a circumstance like that I think we need a third party to come in.
Senator Barn. This is what concerns me, the matter of giving the people a choice. It comes back to the fact that the Nixon voters of North Carolina didn't have a full choice, they didn't have a choice because the voters who wanted to vote for Richard Nixon didn't have any way of doing it.
Dr. BAILEY. That is right.
Senator BAYH. Are you at all concerned about the prospect that a President of any party, American Independent Party, Republican, Democrat, Socialist Labor, or Prohibition or whatever it might be, that a President of any party would have great difficulty serving this Nation at a time of trial if he received fewer votes than the man he was running against ?
Dr. BAILEY. I don't think that we can automatically assume that. I think that if a man ascended to the Presidency under the conditions that everyone would know why, they would judge him on his own merits, and we all have the best interests of the country at heart and would try to do the things that are right. I think that it would have to be that way if we are to survive.
Senator BAYH. How does this system actually work? By carrying a handful of States by the barest of margins—12 States, I believe a candidate can win the necessary 270 electoral votes to be elected President, even though he was defeated soundly in the other 38 States.
The most graphic example of this was the election of 1948, in which our friend from South Carolina was a candidate. It was a four party race then. We had a Wallace, running on the other end of the political spectrum, Senator Thurmond and Governor Dewey and Vice President Truman. When the votes were counted, President Truman had a 2 million, not just a handful, but he had a 2 million vote plurality. Yet if there had been a change of less than 30,000 votes in just three key States, California, Illinois, and Ohio, Governor Dewey would have been elected President despite this 2 million vote plurality. Does that concern you?
Dr. BAILEY. Yes, it does. I think that the unit rule is the reason for that. I think if the electors were free there are even more possibilities, and these things certainly have to be considered.
Senator BayH. All right.
I thank you for your patience. If anyone else cares to ask any further questions, they may proceed.
Senator THURMOND. I have one or two more questions.
Dr. Bailey, speaking about the choice, you were not elected by the people of your district but you were elected by the whole State so you are not necessarily bound by the people of your district because you are running for the whole State. I believe the distinguished chairman indicated that, about the choice in your district but you were not voting, as I understand, you didn't vote for former Governor Wallace because he carried your district, but you voted for him because after the election the candidate who was nominated, Mr. Nixon, took positions which you didn't agree with and you felt that you ought to vote as a protest more or less to those decisions ?
Senator BAYH. Would the Senator yield? We can look right here at what Dr. Baily did say. He said
Senator THURMOND. His statement covers only part of it, his printed statement.
Senator Bayh. That is right.
I am referring to his philosophy. He said, “This left no doubt about the wishes of the people in the district should they have been denied under a representative system of government." That is why I asked the question.
Senator THURMOND. He explained the position he did take was in accord with his district. The point I am pointing out however, is he didn't vote, as I understand it, for former Governor Wallace because his district voted that way. He ran as a Nixon elector, intended to vote for Nixon even after the election, until certain positions were taken by the President-elect in which event he then exercised his own judgment as he had a legal right to do and voted as a protest against that action for former Governor Wallace. In other words, what you did, because you said you would not have voted for Wallace if that would have thrown the election into the House. I believe that is what you said, you would not have voted for him and thrown it into the House so what it is you were doing then because Mr. Nixon had been elected in effect, so what you were doing was to exercise your legal right to vote as you please to show a protest after certain positions taken after election?
Dr. BAILEY. That is right.
Now, in forming these opinions after President Nixon began to make these appointments it became apparent to me that certain philosophies will not be changed, this is certainly my opinion. But on the other hand, Governor Wallace represented in his campaign the other side, so the fact that Governor Wallace won in the district and the fact that he also represented the opposing views to what appeared to me to be coming, certainly made it easy to vote for Governor Wallace in the electoral college. For those two reasons.
Senator THURMOND. The reason you changed your mind as I understood chiefly, was to show a protest to actions taken after the election because you intended to vote for Mr. Nixon until after then, but to buttress that or to fortify your position the people of your district had voted that way too as I understand. That is your position, is that correct?
Dr. BAILEY. That is right. These things that began to happen made me, they were the underlying cause for me changing.
Senator THURMOND. We spoke about two parties. I presume you believe in the two-party system so long as it gives the people a choice? But the avenue must always be left open
Dr. BAILEY. Yes, sir.
Senator THURMOND (continuing). For a third party to come in if both parties advocate similar policies and the people do not have a choice. That is the reason I ran for President in 1948. I felt there was really no true choice between Mr. Truman and Mr. Dewey, and I ran to give the people a choice. And I presume you do believe in the twoparty system so long as it gives the people a real choice?
Dr. BAILEY. Yes, I do.
Senator THURMOND. But the avenue must be left open for a third party if the two parties don't give the people a choice or if a third party wants to run but I mean it is very vital if the people don't have a choice, it is vital then that the avenue be left open for a third party candidate?