better informed, contrary to Dr. Bailey's belief, much better educated, much more concerned about what is going on in the politics of our Nation and also in international politics.

I can cite numerous empirical studies by reputable political scientists to support my belief.

Another reason why I believe that the electoral college is no longer a useful instrument is that the Congress, by its own wisdom and also because of external pressure has become more truly representative of the interests of the people and of the interests of the State as a unit. Therefore, we no longer need an electoral college system as a kind of electoral check and balance mechanism against the erstwhile overrepresentation of the rural interests in Congress.

So, on these two grounds, I would think that I would disagree with Dr. Bailey.

Furthermore, I really do not think that Dr. Bailey's suggestion that we give the elector the freedom to vote his conscience is a tenable argument at all in the light of his definition or anybody's definition of the republican form of government, because the heart of the republican form of government is the representative form of government; and then, of course, the question of what makes representation work. It does not mean that the individual representative can vote any way he wants to without any regard for the wishes of his electorate. Senator BAYH. Thank you.

Mr. WARREN. In response to your question about the capability of the young people in relation to voting, I think the thing we have witnessed within the past 15 years is a growing social awareness on the part of younger people, particularly those under the age of 21, and it created a new type of social consciousness which is forcing all of us to reevaluate and reexamine practically every thought and every reaction and every institution which we formerly took for granted, and certainly the political institutions are being forced to reexamine themselves.

I think the primary reason why this has happened, the primary reason why there is such an awareness on the part of the younger people is due to the educational system.

As I mentioned in my testimony, I think today's younger people are better educated than ever before. The educational facilities they have available to them are better, but they also have mass media that is available to them.

Fifteen years ago it was unheard of for a 5-year-old boy to sit down to breakfast and be watching the TV about the monetary crisis in France, people being killed in Vietnam, a race riot in Detroit, and a number of other things, and so today's children are growing up in a totally adult world.

It is a fast world, it is a world that totally surrounds them with information and, consequently, they are better equipped to deal with the problem.

Personally, I know during the 1964 election when I was in high school, every single day everyone in my high school was required to study the issues between Goldwater and Johnson. We could tell you the history of Johnson, the history of Goldwater, and the arguments for both the Democratic and Republican stands.

29-018-69

Very few adults that I know could match the knowledge or the awareness of this different arguments and their validity that most of my colleagues have, primarily because we studied it every day, and so I think today's younger people have a social consciousness which is changing the country, and I think they are better educated, and I think that generally, outside of many of the other arguments that are advanced, warrants them the extension of the franchise.

Dr. ASHMAN. Senator, on that question you asked Dr. Shao, to accept Dr. Bailey's premise of the need being greater today than in times of our forefathers that we have our select, more sophisticated few choose our Government, it would be as if to say that the combined efforts of the Congresses over the years, the research of our foundations as well as Government and industry, our educators, our communications have all been for naught, and that all of the money and all of the time and all of the effort that have gone into making our country more informed, as Dennis pointed out, accomplished nothing.

Secondly, if I could take a demurrer on that one point, I think Mr. Sorenson implied something very, very interesting when we talked about the illiteracy which relates here.

In the course of a debate or when I argued on behalf of the extension of the franchise, someone said, "Well, what are you going to do about those irresponsible kids that are taking down Columbia?"

And the answer is, unfortunately, there are some irresponsible people under 21, but I have not yet found a place in the Constitution of the United States or the decisions of the court interpreting it, that limit the Presidency and Vice Presidency to governing over responsible citizens or a select few.

I suggest to you that you did not disenfranchise those veterans who marched on Washington nor do we when we have a union-management problem say, "Well, those who don't act properly, you lose your right to vote."

So how are we to say now that certain segments of society because, perhaps, they do not match the standards of others should not be enfranchised or, carrying it to Dr. Bailey's extension, not only should not vote, but if they are going to vote, they can only vote for an elector who is better qualified to pick the President of the United States and the Vice President.

I believe in an absolute extension of the franchise. It is amazing to me that we can send troops to Vietnam, to a country which has a terribly high illiteracy rate, coming from the United States with a relatively low illiteracy rate, and yet they vote at 18 in Vietnam and directly.

It is amazing to me that we deal with Latin American problems where much of Latin America votes at 18. Many of the Soviet bloc countries, when they do vote, vote at 18.

I think, and I do not wish to get aside from the electoral college system, but I think there is an interrelation here. You either underestimate the dignity, the sophistication and intellectual capability of American people of all ages or you do not, and you either accept the fact that the President of the United States is the President of all the people or he is not, and to accept Dr. Bailey's premise for the need for electors picking a President would be an insult to all of the institutions that we have enumerated.

Senator BAYH. Thank you.

Dr. Shao, does this defection of the federal system argument-how does that set with you as a political scientist?

Dr. SHAO. I really do not buy that argument.

I feel that, first of all, we should not concentrate on the federal system as an institution commensurate with the Constitution, because there are a number of other constitutional principles within our political system, such as checks and balances, such as even within the federal system there is that, is, what is National and what is State, and it seems to me if the legislative branch is by the Constitution based on direct popular vote to district apportionment, and also representation on a territorial basis, then the executive branch, as a check and balance on the legislative branch, could very well be placed on a different constitutional principle for representation or constitutional base for representation.

That is why I am for the direct popular vote of the President, because there is a political theory involved. There is a political, democratic, theory involved, which is very much in keeping with our total constitutional theory; namely, federalism with checks and balances in its institutional setup.

Senator BAYH. Thank you very much.

I should note that Senate Hruska, our distinguished colleague from Nebraska, is here. Senator Hruska, do you want to question the witness?

Senator HRUSKA. Yes. Thank you very much.

In that last statement, you said you believe in the checks and balances and then you attempt to justify popular vote for the President. But the original system of checks and balances included a recognition of the federal system for the electoral college.

How do you dismiss that out of hand so readily. You want to keep one part of the checks and balances systems but not the other part. How do you reconcile that?

Dr. SHAO. I think that it is basically also a practical argument. My argument is that the electoral college has served its need and its use in the particular stage of the development of our political system.

Senator HRUSKA. Well, now, before we get too far, for purposes of discussion let us consider the electoral college will be changed to the extent of abolishing the freedom of electors. Then I think we will make some headway because when a horse is pretty much dead there is no use keeping on beating him.

Let us agree, therefore, to the abolition of electors, but consider nevertheless, having the federal system retained by allowing each State two votes in addition to the number of votes they have on the basis of congressional representation. Do you get my idea? If you would direct your remarks to that kind of a system.

Dr. SHAO. Well, I feel that, you see, the President ought to have a national constituency as opposed and contrasted to the Congressmen and Senators in terms of their base of constituencies, and this, it seems to me, does not violate the principle of federalism, as I understand it.

Senator HRUSKA. What is your understanding of the federal principle?

Dr. SHAO. My understanding of the federal principle is that there are two levels of government provided on the basis of territorial differences, the National and the State, and then in terms of establishing workable representative institutions you may then use the State as a basis for electing your representatives, on the one hand, and use the whole Nation or use the Union or use the United States of America as a basis for electing another Governor or President for the whole system.

Senator HRUSKA. But, of course, that latter part, that is not the federal system. The federal system is based primarily on the federal compromise, as we remember it from our history books. Our history books tell us that the essence of the great compromise which made possible and practical the formation of a republic back there in 1787 was that compromise between big States and small States.

All States were not alike, and in Congress each State was to get two Senators and then they were to get the Represenatives according to population. That same system seeking to reconcile the conflict between big States and small States, called for two Presidential electors from each State in addition to the representation on the basis of population. Now, that is a system used for election of the President. Why do you seek to say that is not a part of the Federal system? That was a very integral part of the Federal system.

Now, you say let us discard one of them. Why do you say that? Dr. SHAO. Well, I think the President, according to the Federalist papers, was to be elected by a group of electors according to their own wisdom, and whatever the practice we have now, Senator, is not a constitutional principle, but an outgrowth of political convention. The Constitution never provided for the unit rule, and yet we now use the unit rule, and never really say that it is a practice that is against the Federal system of government.

Senator HRUSKA. Well, Mr. Witness, you are back to electors, and I thought we were going to confine ourselves to a discussion on the basis that unfettered electors as people will not be considered in this. We were going to discuss a way of computing votes on that basis, without the personal discretion on the part of an elector to do as he wishes. So again, when you get back to electors that is something that is pretty much of a dead issue. I do not think you are going to find too much controversy about it. But you wish to abandon a principle and a method which was undeniably a part of the great compromise which made possible the creation and the working of a Federal republic. Why do you do it?

Dr. ASHMAN. With your permission, since this is a collective effort, let me make this observation and comment.

I think it was Wayne Morse whom I heard speak just a week ago, who is a great constitutional lawyer and a great law-school dean, who talked about the Constitution and many of its provisions and many of its concepts and the growth and development through decision and through practice that has come.

The Presidency, as it has developed and as it is administered today, is, perhaps, best reflected by the various departments in the executive branch of the Government, and I see what Dr. Shao was getting at in mentioning checks and balances.

The administration of the functions of those various departments is done nationally. They are not done within the borders of the States. The functions of the Presidency, or whatever power of the Presidency is outlined in the Constitution that you referred to or perhaps even if you accept the argument of the increasing power, the breakdown of the checks and balances, still those powers and the administration of those powers are done nationally.

Senator HRUSKA. Weren't they done nationally in the initial instance? Weren't they done nationally in 1789?

Dr. ASHMAN. I cannot take the position of trying to disregard the significance of constitutional history because I admire it and respect it as much as you. But

Senator HRUSKA. Is there any change in that respect? They were intended to be national officers. They always were. Is there any change in that regard today?

Dr. ASHMAN. To accept that argument, Senator, with all due respect, would be to say that amendments correcting and decisions interpreting and expanding the Constitution were wrong because we had a Constitution to start with in a certain framework of history, and that is it. We have had to amend the Constitution. We have had to amend defects within the Constitution. We have had to have judicial interpretation as to what the significance was.

Would you want to take that premise further and say, as Dr. Bailey did today, that we shall pick electors who are a little more sophisticated than the populace?

Senator HRUSKA. Not at all. You are a very skillful debater, Mr. Witness.

Dr. ASHMAN. Thank you.

Senator HRUSKA. But my question was this: You say Cabinet officials were nonnational officers, but now they have duties and activities and powers that are national in character.

My simple question was, Do Cabinet officials possess attributes that are different from the attributes they possessed in 1789?

Dr. ASHMAN. And my answer to you is partially "Yes.'
Senator HRUSKA. And in what way?

Dr. ASHMAN. In the sense that the fact that we had a confederation of States each of which historically sacrificed the sum of their political power to create this republic. There was far more, there were far more mechanics, if you will, for sake of a better word, between the creation of that, which was, on a Federal level and that which existed on a State level.

The development of land, the development ultimately of the currency situation, required far more intriciate liaison. We now have not only a highly developed National Government but what some people fail to recognize, highly developed State governments as well, and they have gone their way serving various functions. And you, sir, are a far more skillful debater than I, because we had gotten away from the fundamental premise which I raised and Dr. Shao raised, and Mr. Warren raised, and that is this: We have a basic Constitution given us in good faith by our forefathers, with some imperfections.

Fortunately, previous Congresses and previous generations of Americans have corrected some of those imperfections, and in the wis