Senator THURMOND. Well, the right side does not always win when there are pressure groups in the country pushing the other way.

Mr. SORENSEN. All I am suggesting, Senator, there is very little to be gained by you and I rearguing a question that has previously been settled.

Senator THURMOND. I am asking whether you think it is proper to ignore the setting up of qualifications to vote by State law as set forth in the Constitution.

Mr. SORENSEN. Senator, I supported the civil rights statutes permitting the registrars to register those entitled to vote.

I favor the present statute of the Congress which allows illiterates

to vote.

Senator THURMOND. Under that, now if you have a popular election and inject the Federal Government into that, will there not be more and more illiterates if the Federal Government is going to

Senator ERVIN. I amend your statement, it allows southern illiterates to vote, but not northern illiterates where they have a literacy test.

Senator THURMOND. Well, under the law now an illiterate is allowed to vote in North Carolina but he is not allowed to vote in your State of New York. Would you favor that?

Mr. SORENSEN. No; as a matter of fact, I am in favor of abolishing the present literacy test in the State of New York also.

Senator ERVIN. In other words, you favor allowing illiterates to vote everywhere?

Mr. SORENSEN. You might put it that way.

Senator ERVIN. At least I commend you for your fairness in taking the same position in all the States which this law you said you favored

doesn't do.

Now, if the Federal Government enters the field of elections at the presidential level by a popular vote, then the Federal Government has great power, and the party in power might use its power to a greater extent than ever to enroll people to vote who are not allowed to vote under the law of the State or maybe under the Constitution. Don't you think there would be a temptation there instead of letting the States run the elections for the Federal Government to go further in order to win that presidential race? Don't you feel you are injecting the Federal Government into a field that eventually could be a very dangerous situation?

Mr. SORENSEN. No; I don't think so, Senator. If by the party in power you are referring to the party now in control of the administration, I share your concern, but I am confident that the legislative branch is going to make certain that any laws relating to the right to vote that are enacted are going to be fair and proper.

Senator THURMOND. Of course, I am not as much concerned under the Nixon administration as I would be if your party gets back in power again.

Senator BAYH. I am glad to see we have total political objectivity in our approach to the subject. [Laughter.]

Senator THURMOND. He brought it up first so I just answered his

statement.

Now, if the Federal Government enters the field of elections at the presidential level by popular vote, then don't you think there is going

to be a temptation for the Federal Government to inject itself more and more as time goes by into State elections, maybe down into Governor's elections or other officials in the State. The Federal power has a way of creeping, and it has been creeping now for a long time, and don't you think that you are going to set a precedent here that might ultimately affect State elections that would be detrimental to the powers of the States.

Mr. SORENSON. Senator, I have been involved in Washington matters for a long time, and I must say I have never been impressed by arguments raised either by liberals or conservatives who oppose particular legislation or constitutional amendments on the grounds that its logical extension is going to lead to some extreme or that this is a first step, that is the camel's nose under the tent and so on.

All I am asking the Congress to do is to take this step. It doesn't lead to any other step necessarily. The Congress is not going to suddenly be bereft of its wisdom and discretion. It will know where to draw the line on this matter as it has on all matters in the past.

Senator THURMOND. That is what those proponents of the measures say in the Congress. Just take this step and then in another year it is another step, and in another year it is another step, and now we have the Federal Government injected into a great many fields of activity, never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution and for which there is no constitutional power, and I am very much afraid of that. But thank you very much for your appearance here.

Mr. SORENSEN. Thank you, Senator.

Senator ERVIN. I might say I am not impressed by your theory of corruption. I think you have about the same amount of corruption under both systems.

Mr. SORENSEN. I agree with you, Senator, that corruption is always possible under any system. We have corruption today and I hope we could eliminate it entirely. But as I say, I think it is easier to deal with corruption when we have a system that all people understand because they use it in all the other elections.

Senator BAYH. I apologize for having to leave.

I think it is a very comprehensive statement, as I said before. I am particularly impressed by your point that it would be very difficult, if indeed not impossible at these times to be President of the United States if you are defeated by the rank and file voter. To me this is fundamental and I appreciate your zeroing in on that.

Let me just quickly deal with two or three points. This business of fraudulent voting, human nature being what it is, we want to do everything we can to prevent fraudulent voting, but when it gets right down to it, isn't our chance of prohibiting fraudulent voting better when those votes are less likely to have an impact on the election?

For example, California now has 40 electoral votes. To use your example of a political manipulator in California

Mr. SORENSEN. And in the next election, I think they will have a good deal more.

Senator BAYH. Yes, they will have more, but as of right now, those 40 votes out of the 270 required to win under the present system is a significant percentage. The incentive to involve one's self in fraud to produce an additional 10,000 votes in California, which represents, according to my figures, between 14 and 15 percent of that 270, is great

because the stakes are higher. In other words, if you can buy 10,000 extra votes in California you can buy 14 to 15 percent of the Presidency?

Mr. SORENSEN. Exactly.

Senator BAYH. Whereas, if you can buy 10,000 votes in the popular vote system, this is 10,000 votes out of 70-plus million.

Mr. SORENSEN. Exactly.

Senator BAYH. I don't want to put words in your mouth because you have done so marvelously well this morning without any help from me. I just want to make sure we zero in on two or three of these things which I think are very important.

The business of changing the system: I must say I can't honestly believe there is going to be a great deal of change in the system. To be sure, our President is going to do what you and I do, Senator Ervin, when we run for Senator. We are going to go where the votes are. But what we find in a popular vote system is that 1,000-vote margin in Wyoming, would be 1,000 votes under a popular vote system, and a thousand-vote margin in New York would be a thousandvote margin under the popular vote system. Under the present system, however, a thousand-vote margin in Wyoming or Alaska would contribute toward three electoral votes for the Presidency, whereas a thousand vote margin in New York would contribute toward 43 electoral votes for the Presidency.

Senator BAYH. Under direct popular election, we are still going to go where the population centers are, but we are also going to go where the people are and if they are in the small electoral vote States, then candidates will go there as well.

Mr. SORENSEN. That is right.

It was mentioned earlier in the morning, Mr. Chairman, that the people in upstate New York have very little incentive to vote today because those in New York City are going to govern. That I might add shows some misconception of New York politics, because the people of New York City have not been doing that well at all times. But under the popular vote system, every vote cast in upstate New York will be counted equally with a vote cast in New York City or anywhere else. Today it is discounted. If the Democrats in New York City overwhelm the Republicans in upstate New York there isn't much incentive for a Republican in upstate New York if that is really the case, and he feels the Democrats are going to overwhelmingly carry the State, to go to the polls. There wasn't much incentive for a Democrat to vote in Nebraska when I was growing up there but under the popular vote system the vote of that Democrat in Nebraska and that Republican in upstate New York will be important, will be counted in his candidate's margin so there is much more incentive for him to go to the polls and vote today.

Senator ERVIN. Just to save time, the same thing is true under my proposal, the proportional voting system. Every vote would be counted. Mr. SORENSEN. Your system would help in that aspect but since it would hurt in other aspects, Senator, I am against it.

Senator THURMOND. Under the district system the people of each congressional district would determine where that vote goes.

Mr. SORENSEN. Ah, no, but, Senator, do you think there would be much incentive for a Republican in Brooklyn to vote under the district system where the winner takes all?

Senator THURMOND. Well, I think there would be about as much as a Democrat in upper New York.

Mr. SORENSEN. But under the popular vote system wherever that Republican or Democrat are living their vote is going to be counted and make a difference.

Senator THURMOND. Why not let the people of each congressional district determine how they want that electoral vote to go. Then the way the State goes, following the federal system, gives the two votes corresponding to your Senators to the winner of the greater number of voters in the State, I mean the way the people vote in the State.

Mr. SORENSEN. That is right.

The district system not only disadvantages those on the losing side, as Senator Ervin pointed out, but it also introduces gerrymander in presidential elections and I can't think of a worse distortion to introduce into what is already a distorted matter.

Senator THURMOND. They could just follow congressional districts. Mr. SORENSEN. Well, congressional districts

Senator THURMOND. And each State fixes that. That goes back to your federal system again. And is the Federal Government going to control that? You are going to leave it to each State?

Mr. SORENSEN. That is correct.

Senator THURMOND. It is just a question of whether you want the Federal Government to dictate everything or whether you are going to leave it to the people of each State, and I am in favor of leaving it to the people of each State but leaving it to the people of each congressional district in each State as to saying how their vote for President should go. I prefer that, although I think the proportional system would be far better than what we have now. But the popular vote system which would destroy our Federal system, it seems to me would be abhorrent.

Mr. SORENSEN. It wouldn't destroy our Federal system in the slightest, Senator, but it would leave it to the people of the United States to elect their President.

Senator BAYH. I was going to suggest as an alternative to the people of the States or the people of congressional districts, perhaps we ought to leave it to the people, period.

The proliferation of the two-party system concerned me, originally. But as you pointed out, under the present system there is little incentive for a Republican in a Democratic State.

The same is true, of course, of a Democrat in a traditionally Republican State. In a popular vote system, on the other hand, even if you are in a Republican or Democratic State, if you get out an extra 100 votes those votes are counted in the final result.

Mr. SORENSEN. Not only that, Senator, but the two-party system would be strengthened by the fact that a third party which had not thought of throwing it into the House of Representatives would be discouraged from attempting to get into that bargaining position. If it had a real claim to the voters, if it thought it had a real chance of

receiving the mandate then it would enter a third party, and I happen to agree with Senator Thurmond that under those circumstances the third party should enter the lists. But if a third party has no chance, if it is only getting into there in order to play the game of independent electors, trading, bargaining with the electoral college or with the House of Representatives, then I think it undemocratic and we ought to discourage it by doing away with our present system.

Senator BAYH. Well, Mr. Sorensen, I really appreciate your taking the time to be with us. I think you had a pretty good cross examination here and I think you remain unbowed.

Senator THURMOND. To suit you, to suit the chairman.

Senator BAYH. No, I didn't say that. I think most of our witnesses have retained their composure and I don't feel that the necessary prerequisite for a good witness is to convince all of the Senators he is talking to. That might be impossible.

Senator ERVIN. I would just like to make this observation that all of these terrible possibilities which Mr. Sorensen's very vivid mind has conjured up remind me of a story. This little girl was walking along the street weeping as if her heart would break, and this gentleman stopped and he said "what is the trouble?" She said, "I have just got to thinking." She said, "I am now 9 years old and I just got to thinking that I might grow up a grown lady and get married and have a little daughter and that my little daughter might die." So I think Mr. Sorensen has conjured up some unnecessary possibilities of making a very strong case that are possible, perhaps, but very remote. Senator BAYH. Thanks very much.

Mr. SORENSEN. Thank you.

Senator BAYH. We have other witnesses and since they have come all the way from California and are here at their own expense, I would like to ask my colleagues if we can go ahead and hear them?

Senator Thurmond feels we should adjourn for lunch here. Will our three witnesses be free to come back at 2:30? Senator Ervin won't be able to be here at 2:30 but we will go ahead and adjourn in deference to our colleague from South Carolina, and with apologies to our witnesses that this has dragged out so long. I think the exchanges have been extremely enlightening and we are looking forward to an equally interesting exchange this afternoon.

(Whereupon at 1:05 p.m. the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m. of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator BAYH. We will reconvene our subcommittee, with apologies to our next witnesses.

I would like to ask Dr. Charles Ashman, director of the school of public affairs of the University of the Pacific, to introduce our next two witnesses, Dr. Otis Shao, and also Mr. Dennis Warren, national chairman of the Let Us Vote campaign.

I appreciate your coming across country to broaden the scope of our vision here. We are trying to get as many different points of view from as many groups as we can, and we appreciate your joining us.