« 上一頁繼續 »
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 Bays. 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 Barn. 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 Bays. 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 Bayu. Thanks very much.
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 Baru. 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 's 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. STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES ASHMAN, DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF
PUBLIC AFFAIRS, UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC
Dr. ASHMAN. Thank you, Senator.
I only wish that our academic training were not in the libraries of the university but more the Army manuals, so that the press would have been more this afternoon, because we have something to say.
On behalf of the University of the Pacific and the public affairs institute of the university, I want to thank you for the opportunity afforded the academic community in participating in these hearings.
I would particularly like to note the university's permitting a student, Dennis Warren, to appear. I think, frankly, both your colleagues in the Senate and the House have been in error in not calling more on the young people who live where the action is and tell it the way it is, and who are so much concerned.
I think we are wrong, in not bringing them here to tell their views, for they are expressing concern, for they are reaching out. I recall particularly the draft card hearings which, unfortunately, did not have any students participating.
I think the views expressed today by Dr. Shao and Dennis Warren, have submitted or will submit statements that will present the prevailing opinion of both the students and the academic community.
I further suggest the opportunity you have made available for student participation can be a tremendous factor in the elimination of the frustration and unrest that permeates their generation.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have established at the university, the public affairs institute. Its concept is to bring about a closer working relationship between the academic community, the community-at-large, and you and nine of your colleagues of the U.S. Senate have either visited or will visit our campus, not to speak, but to meet and to discuss.
One of the previous witnesses today, Mr. Sorensen, has been invited to participate, and several others. We think it is an important program.
I must admit that the most significant visit to the institute this year was yours in December when you discussed with residents from throughout northern California and our university community the matters pending or that will be pending before your committee.
The results of your visit are a tribute to the energy, the initiative, the workmanship, the talents of the young people, for there is today a nationwide organization which is called LUV, which stands for Let Us Vote. Mr. Warren is the national chairman; I have the honor of serving as adviser to it.
In 3 weeks it has reached and is now active in 300 colleges and universities, 3,000 high schools. It has been formally endorsed by the National Education Association which represents 1,300,000 teachers.
Immediately after this hearing we will meet with representatives of the AFL-CIO, the NAACP, the Young Democrats, the Young Republicans, and the YMCA, who have formed a coalition to work toward a lowering of the voting age.
Incidental to their concern for lowering the voting age, LUV has as a secondary, but certainly equal stature, concern over the equity of the present electoral college system.
We believe that the elimination of the inequities in our present political system by an expansion of the franchise to 18-year-olds, which I hope and believe this committee will at some later date have under study, and by the return to the people of the right to pick their President and Vice President, that a large step toward the elimination of the frustration of youth which is causing problems throughout the country can be taken.
We have called upon a distinguished international scholar whom we are fortunate to have on our faculty, Dr. Shao, who holds his Ph. D. in political science and, in addition to teaching political science throughout the United States, has worked in international education, setting up study programs in Taiwan, France, and England, and has published innumerable articles on the powers of the Presidency.
At this time what I would like to do is call upon, first, Dr. Shao, to summarize his statement, and then Mr. Warren his, and then we will be very happy to answer any questions your committee may have.
Senator Bayh. Thank you very much, Dr. Ashman. Dr. Shao, we are indeed fortunate to have you testify. I am anxious to see where your testimony will lead. Off the record. (Whereupon, there was a short discussion off the record.) Senator Bays. Please proceed, Dr. Shao. STATEMENT OF DR. OTIS H. SHAO, DEAN, GRADUATE SCHOOL,
UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC
Dr. SHAO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator Thurmond.
Surely, I need not now review the historical reasons and purposes of the establishment of the electoral college by our Founding Fathers, nor need I present a careful analysis of its contemporary manifestations; such summaries and arguments are well-known and available to you.
But I should like to state that a direct popular election of the President is the natural way for a democratic society. Accordingly, I support the proposal that the electoral college be abolished. Such a motion calls forth many arguments that are based on practical consideration. Yet as practical men, gentlemen, you regularly develop plausible solutions to demanding problems.
Speaking as a citizen, as well as a political scientist and an educator, I do ask you to tackle the practical problems of this desirable constitutional amendment. Such action would demonstrate the forward-looking attitude of our governing bodies both to the world at large and also to our citizens at home. Among these citizens at home, I may be thinking especially of our new maturing generation of youths and to the challenge of nurturing their vision and faith in the greatness of America.
As a political scientist, I am not sure what the outcome of such idealism would be for each of you: it might mean problems for the Repub