unpledged electors.

The unit vote system has tended to limit the choice of Presidential candidates to men from the large states who have the likelihood of capturing the large bloc of electoral votes in those states. The unit vote system puts a premium on fraud because the juggling of a few votes can swing the electoral votes of the entire state, and in a close election, the decision of who will be President.

The current electoral system gives the legislatures the power to direct any method they wish of selecting Presidential electors, and the possibility of gross abuse of power by state legislatures is always present.

If the election is thrown into the House of Representatives because no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, a totally unrepresentative system goes into operation. Each state has a single vote, in total disregard to its population and in total disregard to the popular votes

-

cast in those states. Furthermore, the votes of equally divided state delegations in the House are not counted at all. A majority in each state's House delegation casts its one vote.

The method of electing members of the electoral college tends to confine national Presidential campaigns to a few pivotal states.

The small states have an advantage in the electoral college because each state has one electoral vote for each of its two Senators regardless of population. (This advantage is offset by "winnertake-all" system which favors the large states) The present method permits and invites undue influence by minority groups in all states, but especially in large pivotal states, perpetuating the continuation and political solidification of economic, racial, and religious groups.

The present system of electing the President places excessive pressure on the candidate for office to favor the minority groups whose help he hopes will bring about his election.

Some critics of the present system point to the “inequity" in the present system which permits the election of so-called "minority" Presidents. These are Presidents who attained a majority (over 50%) of the electoral vote but less than a majority of the total popular votes cast. This has occurred in fourteen instances which fall into two categories:

1. Those who received less than 50% of the popular votes cast but more votes than the nearest opponent. (11 instances)

2. Those who received less than 50% of the popular votes cast but fewer votes than the nearest opponent. (3 instances)

The fact that a President may be elected with less than a majority of the popular vote has not come under much criticism as long as the victor actually received more votes than his nearest opponent. All of the major reform proposals presume "minority" Presidents in this category to be a possibility and most proponents of reform do not object to this feature of the present system.

The real criticism by some proponents of reform (particularly those who advocate a nationwide popular vote) is of situations in which the elected President actually received fewer popular votes than his nearest opponent.

This occurred in the following instances: 1824-John Quincy Adams received fewer popular votes than Andrew Jackson and, since neither had a majority of the electoral votes, the election fell to the House of Representatives, which elected Adams.

1876 Rutherford B. Hayes received fewer popular votes than Samuel J. Tilden. However, returns from four states were contested and an electoral commission created by Congress decided the contested returns in favor of Hayes, enabling him to win the election by one electoral vote.

1888-Benjamin Harrison polled fewer popular votes than Grover Cleveland, but received more electoral votes and was elected to the Presidency.

1

If the President is to be the man of the people, he ought to be elected directly by, the people without regard to the states.

Most Americans think they vote directly now and would be incensed if the popular vote winner was denied the Presidency as could happen under the current system and certain other proposals for reform.

Political activity would be promoted in the "safe" states where one party is dominant and the two-party system thus invigorated.

Candidates would have to direct their campaigns to the population as a whole, rather than to special interest groups.

Direct popular election is simple to comprehend and conforms to most American's belief as to what they are and should be doing when they vote in a Presidential election.

There are only two national elective offices, the Presidency and Vice Presidency. It seems just and right that this should be a truly national election with every qualified citizen entitled to an equal vote.

Strong support for electoral reform has come from those who are interested in reviving the small state's influence in presidential elections. In order to accomplish this they must eliminate the prevailing general ticket system which favors the large states. Some balance in the exchange of electoral power would result from the elimination of the electoral votes for the office of Senator under the direct election proposal.

Under every other method it would still be possible to have minority presidents elected although another candidate might receive a larger popular

vote.

A nationwide popular vote could be implemented without additional federal standards connected with voting qualifications.

Only a nationwide popular vote can enlist the moral and ideological forces which would be required to bring about a change in the present system.

The federal' principle in our government would not be jeopardized by the utilization of the direct popular vote. This method came under consideration at the Constitutional Convention and was not accepted at that time for other reasons. The present general ticket system operates contrary to the concept of federalism by giving the large states undue weight in the electoral process. The federal principle has it strongest and primary protection through the U. S. Senate which is the

key to the protection of state interests as state interests, and in the U. S. House of Representatives which affords protection of district interests as districts interests.

A House of Representatives representing substantially equal geographical blocks of people, a Senate representing the people as organized into states, and a President representing the people of the Nation considered as one great constituency would appear to be as fairly and properly balanced a series of organs for guiding the Nation's destinies as can be devised.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE NATIONWIDE POPULAR VOTE It would strike a fatal blow to the concept of federalism.

Direct election would deprive the small states of the advantage they now enjoy through the two electoral votes accorded each state, regardless of size, corresponding to the equal representation accorded the states in the U. S. Senate.

It would lead, almost inevitably, to irresistable pressure for national laws governing qualifications for voting, in the determination of minimum voting age and educational qualifications which currently vary from state to state.

It would jeopardize the control of the states over voting for state and local offices and constitute a blow to state power.

The relative weight of each state's vote would depend not on its population, but on the number of votes cast and counted.

It would encourage the major political parties to concentrate their campaigns in large cities containing large numbers of voters in small geographical areas. This could work against the interests of the rural communities and the smaller states.

Nominees for the Presidency would most likely come from larger states, or from larger ideological groupings.

It would reduce the party pride in "carrying the state" for its candidate.

Because of the opposition of the small states, a direct popular election amendment could never be ratified, regardless of its merits. About twothirds of the states would lose the built-in advantage they now enjoy in the electoral college through the two electoral votes accorded the states, regardless of size, eqiuvalent to their two U. S. Senators.

THE DISTRICT METHOD

Two major variations of the District Method are:
A. With the retention of the Electoral College
B. With the elimination of the Electoral College

District Method—

With Retention of Electoral College
How It Would Work

- The person and the office of the elector would be preserved.

The electors would be elected in a manner similar to that of U. S. Representatives and U. S. Senators; i.e., one elector for each district and two electors running at large.

- Geographical lines of districts would be set by the state legislatures-not necessarily identical to congressional districts.

- Presidential elector candidates with a plurality in each electoral district would win, and the Presidential elector candidates achieving a plurality in a state would be elected.

-The Presidential candidate receiving the vote of a majority of the electors would win.

- If no candidate received a majority of the electoral vote, the newly elected U. S. Senate and U. S. House of Representatives, sitting jointly and voting as individuals, would choose the President from the candidates having the three highest numbers of electoral votes. A majority of the whole number of Senators and Representatives would elect. (Quorum required: threefourths of whole number of Senators and Representatives.)

The District Method appears to have been the most popular reform proposal in the early years of the Republic. It was proposed at one time or another by most of the then state legislatures. Four times between 1813-1824 it was approved by the U. S. Senate. In 1820, it failed to pass the U. S. House of Representatives by a 92-54 vote, just short of the required Constitutional two-thirds majority and was defeated again in 1826 by a vote of 90-102.

More recently, the District Method has been embodied in proposals offered by former Representative Frederic R. Coudert, Jr. (R-N.Y.-1947-59), and Senator Karl E. Mundt (R-S.D.). It has been cosponsored by many other members of Congress through

the years.

In the First Session (1963) of the 88th Congress, Senator Mundt's proposal, Senate Joint Resolution 12, was co-sponsored by the following U. S. Senators, listed as they appeared on the Resolution:

Strom Thurmond (D-S.C.); John L. McClellan (DArk.); Roman L. Hruska (R-Nebr.); Thruston B. Morton (R-Ky.); Hiram L. Fong (R-Hawaii); J. Caleb Boggs (R-Del.); John Stennis (D-Miss.); Winston L. Prouty (R-Vt.); Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.)

-

The electoral vote results would not be distorted --and the majority of the winner exaggerated as it is in the present system which awards all of the state's electoral votes to the party winning a plurality of popular votes.

It would diminish the excessive political importance of larger, doubtful states, and encourage the major parties to choose candidates and seek electoral votes elsewhere throughout the country. It would encourage the minority party in currently one-party states.

- Splinter parties would not be encouraged because they could have little hope of diverting more than a few electoral votes from one major party candidate.

-

By preserving the electors, the District Method would continue Presidential elections on an intrastate basis, with state election laws controlling. It would no longer be possible for localized bad weather or vote frauds to swing the entire electoral vote of a state.

Gerrymandering of districts would be avoided by requiring that "electoral districts" be composed of compact and contiguous territory containing as nearly as practicable the number of persons which entitled the state to one Representative in the Congress, and by providing that such districts when formed shall not be altered until another census has been taken. (Senator Mundt's proposal contains such a stipulation.)

It would give equal weight, based on population, to both rural and urban districts. Each voter, regardless of where he lived, would vote for two "State Electors" and one "District Elector." Alleged undue influence of minorities in urban areas of large states would be reduced to their numbers in the population.

The system would tend to equate the political pressures on the President with those felt by Congress, since they would be elected by closely identical constituencies.

OF ELECTORAL COLLEGE Election of "minority" Presidents would still be possible under the district plan, i.e., a President could be elected who received fewer popular votes than his nearest opponent.

It would unduly favor the rural sections of the country as against the metropolitan areas.

The state legislatures would gerrymander the elector districts despite the standards laid down in the Amendment. Judicial enforcement attempts may not be effective.

The influence of minority groups would intentionally be reduced through isolating them in individual districts and limiting their statewide force to only two electoral votes.

- It would concentrate Presidential campaigns in marginal districts.

Splinter parties would concentrate all their efforts on a few elector districts in an effort to elect enough electors to swing the balance of power in a close national election and with a view to throwing the election of a President into the Congress, where greater opportunity for bargaining would be afforded.

It would cause members of a minority party in a one-party district to "waste their votes" as in one-party states under present system.

Rural and small-town areas have excessive political influence in the Congress, and urban voters would be deprived of an effective voice in the government under the District Method since they would lose their strong influence in the election

The National Chamber's Public Affairs Committee conducted a comprehensive study on Electoral College Reform and feels strongly, along with the Board of Directors, that the method now used to elect the President and Vice President should be changed through the adoption of an Amendment to the Constitution.

Subject to referendum approval of the proposed

policy statement the National Chamber is prepared to support the adoption of an Amendment that would provide for the elimination of the electoral college and establish either the Nationwide Popular Vote or the District Method in the election of the President and Vice President of the United States.

Additional copies of this National Chamber referendum pamphlet will be made available on request― not exceeding in number that of the Board of Directors and appropriate committee of the organization making the request. Orders should specify Electoral College Reform Referendum Pamphlet.

tity of a special report on Electoral College Reform The National Chamber has on hand a limited quanpublished by the Senate Judiciary Committee following comprehensive hearings that were held in 1961. A single copy of this report will be mailed to any member organization on request. The title of the document is The Electoral College, U. S. Senate, Judiciary Committee Report, Oct. 10, 1961.