ALTERNATE METHODS OF REFORM Some people recognize the need for reform, but recommend other proposals. Two of the more popular alternate reform proposals are: 1. The Proportional Method 2. Retain present system eliminate electoral college THE PROPORTIONAL METHOD How It Would Work -Electoral college and the office of the elector would be eliminated, but the electoral vote preserved. -Each state's electoral vote would be equivalent to the number of Representatives and Senators from that state. -Each Presidential candidate would receive the same proportion of the electoral vote as his share of the state's popular vote, with fractional votes carried out to three decimals. High man would win, provided that if no candidate received at least 40 per cent of the electoral vote nationwide, the new Senators and Representatives-sitting jointly and voting as individuals would pick the President from the two candidates having the largest electoral vote. A majority of the combined votes of the House and Senate would be needed to elect. The Proportional Method was first proposed by Rep. Levi Maish (Pa.) in 1877. Maish proposed that each state's electoral votes be divided proportionately, but rounded off to whole numbers. Later in 1877, Rep. Jordan E. Cravens (Ark.) introduced a plan providing for a proportional division of each state's electoral votes carried out to the third decimal place. The Proportional Method of dividing each state's electoral votes has been incorporated in over seventy amendments proposed since 1947. These resolutions include the Lodge-Gossett and the Daniel-Kefauver proposed amendments. These labels derive from the names of legislators associated with the principal sponsorship of the Proportional Method. They are: former Senator Henry Cabot Lodge (R-Mass.-193743; 1947-53), former Rep. Ed Gossett (D-Tex1939-51), former Senator Price Daniel (D-Tex.1953-56), and Senator Estes Kefauver (D-Tenn.now deceased). In 1950, the U. S. Senate approved the Proportional Method by a vote of 65-27, more than the required two-thirds for proposed Constitutional Amendments. However, the House of Representatives rejected the measure. In the 88th Congress (1963-64), Senator Kefauver's bill, Senate Joint Resolution 27, had the following co-sponsors, with senators listed as they appeared on the Resolution: Thomas J. Dodd (D-Conn.); Thomas H. Kuchel (R-Calif.); Jennings Randolph (D-W.Va.); Leverett Saltonstall (R-Mass.); John J. Sparkman (D-Ala.); Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.). Companion measures were introduced in the House of Representatives. In the First Session (1965) of the 89th Congress, Senator Sparkman (D-Ala.), with co-sponsorship by Senator Saltonstall (R-Mass.), introduced Senate Joint Resolution 7, and Senator Smathers (D-Fla.) introduced Senate Joint Resolution 28 proposing the Proportional Method of reform. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE -It is the nearest possible approach to electing a President by direct popular vote of the people and at the same time retaining and preserving the present relative strength of each state in the election of a President. -The opposition party would be encouraged in currently one-party states because each citizen's vote would have some effect on the total national outcome. It would more closely than the present system equate the power and importance of individual votes in the large and small states. 90-902 O-68-15 Minority party votes would not go uncounted as RETAIN PRESENT SYSTEM-ELIMI- -The electoral vote would conform far, more Individual electors and/or state legislatures would no longer have the power to frustrate the will of the people. It would more accurately measure the overall popular strength of the various candidates by ceasing to allot to any candidate a greater proportion of each state's electoral vote than he received of the popular vote in the state. -The method would reduce the influence of organized minorities in pivotal states because their influence would be measured by their numbers rather than by their bargaining power in swing marginal states. -Accidental circumstances and fraudulent voting or vote counting would be less likely to defeat the choice of the people, because the entire electoral vote of a state would no longer hinge on a few questionable votes. It would broaden the base for the selection of Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates by decreasing the incentive to nominate a man from a large state. - It would not disturb the present system of granting to each state a number of electoral votes equal to the number of its Senators and Repre sentatives. -Sectionalism would tend to be abated. -The state legislatures would no longer determine how electors are appointed. -The outmoded office of the elector, and the abuses which it invites, would be abolished, and the people would feel they had a more direct voice in the choice of a President. At the same time the federal principle would be preserved insofar as each state would continue to have one electoral vote to correspond with each of its two senators. - Minor parties would not be motivated to seek electoral votes because they would still have no hope of winning, and if a 40 per cent plurality requirement is adopted, this would reduce the chance of the election being thrown into the House of Representatives. Proportional distribution of the electoral vote It would retain the advantage that the small - In a close election, with votes being challenged -Rather than adopt a complicated method that How It Would Work Person and office of elector eliminated. -Each state would be entitled to cast for President and Vice President a number of electoral votes equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which such state is entitled in the Congress. (same as present system) -Each state's entire electoral vote would be cast for the candidate receiving a plurality of the popular vote in that state. (same as present system) -If no candidate has a majority of the whole number of electoral votes for President or Vice President, the House and Senate, sitting jointly and voting as individuals, would choose the President from the top three candidates. Plurality of entire House and Senate would elect. Quorum would be three-fourths of whole membership. (present system calls for House of Representatives only to choose in case no candidate received a majority of electoral votes) This method has had some Congressional support in the past. In the First Session (1965) of the 89th Congress, President Johnson proposed this system and it has been introduced (S. J. Res. 58) in the Senate by Senator Bayh (D-Ind.), Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments. tion of the Electoral College (ie., the person and President Johnson's proposal calls for the eliminathe office of electors) and writing the present "winnertake-all" system into the Constitution. On January 29, 1965, President Johnson issued a message to Congress on electoral college reform, stating in part: "We believe that the people should elect their President and Vice President. One of the earliest amendments to our Constitution was submitted and ratified in response to the unhappy experience of an Electoral College stalemate, which jeopardized this principle. Today, there lurks in the Electoral College system the ever-present possibility that electors may substitute their own will for the will of the people I beleive that possibility should be fore closed. Our present system of computing and awarding electoral votes by states is an essential counterpart of our Federal system and the provisions of our Constitution which recognize and maintain our Nation as a union of states. It supports the two-party system which has served our Nation well". ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF RETAINING PRESENT SYSTEM WITH ELIMINATION OF ELECTORAL COLLEGE -This method would have the effect of ensuring that the electoral votes of each state would go to the Presidential candidate who received the highest number of popular votes in each state. - It would remove one of the most "flagrant defects" (possible errant electors) in the present system without changing its essential nature. -It would give constitutional backing to the general ticket system that is now in use. It would support the two-party system. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO RETAINING PRESENT SYSTEM WITH ELIMINATION OF ELECTORAL COLLEGE Opponents fall into two categories-those who insist that there should be no tampering whatsoever with the present system, and those who agree that electors should be bound, but who feel that this would be only a half-way measure which overlooks many other inequities in the present system. -It would "freeze" the present "winner-take-all" (ie., general ticket or unit vote) system with all of its inequities and dangers into the Constitution. (except for the "errant elector" problem) -If adopted, it would preclude meaningful reform for some time, if not permanently. ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 1966 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:18 a.m., in room G-308, New Senate Office Building, Senator Bayh presiding. Present: Senators Bayh and Fong. Also present: Larry A. Conrad (counsel for the subcommittee) and Clyde Flynn (minority counsel). Senator BAYH. We are fortunate this morning to have with us a former Member of Congress who has devoted as many, if not more, hours of study to this than any other former Member of this body. Mr. Gossett, I hope you will consent to the inclusion of a brief biographical résumé in the record at this time. (The biographical résumé referred to follows:) BRIEF BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ED GOSSETT AB degree 1924, LLB 1927 University of Texas; began practice of law in Vernon, Texas, as a member of the law firm of Berry, Stokes, Warlick and Gossett; served as District Attorney of 46th Judicial District of Texas 1932-1936; Member of Congress from 13th District of Texas 1939-1951; resigned from Congress July, 1951, to become General Attorney in Texas for Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. Past President of Dallas Bar Association; past President of Dallas Council on World Affairs; Chairman, U.S. Savings Bonds Program for Texas; Trustee, Texas Bureau for Economic Understanding; member of House of Delegates of American Bar Association from Dallas County. Senator BAYH. Mr. Gossett, we are glad to have you with us. We are looking forward to your statement this morning. Mr. GOSSETT. Thank you, Mr. Senator. May I proceed? STATEMENT OF ED GOSSETT, DALLAS, TEX., FORMER MEMBER OF Mr. GOSSETT. I am going to read my formal statement here. I will try not to burden the record with a lot of repetition. I appreciate the privilege of appearing before the subcommittee. I appear in two capacities: first as vice chairman of a National Electoral Reform Committee; second as a former Congressman from Texas who was joint author with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of the so-called Lodge-Gossett amendment. The Lodge-Gossett amendment. passed the Senate on February 1, 1950, by a vote of 64 to 27. The National Electoral Reform Committee of which I am currently vice chairman consists of the following persons, all of whom I believe are known to you: Hon. Edwin C. Johnson of Colorado, chairman, former Member of the U.S. Senate. Hon. Scott Lucas of Illinois, former Member of the U.S. Senate. Hon. Cecil Underwood of West Virginia, a former Governor. Hon. Lane Dwinell of New Hampshire, a former Governor, and myself. This committee has wide philosophical and geographical distribution. Three of its members are Democrats and two of its members are Republicans. We contend that electoral reform is a completely nonpartisan issue and should have the unqualified support of all Americans who believe in fair and honest elections based upon some semblence of equality of voting rights. The purpose of our committee was to promote electoral reform under article V of the U.S. Constitution through the device of State initiative. We have temporarily dispelled activity, hoping that this subcommittee will, in due course, report out a satisfactory amendment. However, I would like to call the subcommittee's attention to the fact that with very little effort, without contacting even a majority of the States, we have procured the adoption of our so-called amendment resolution by 12 States, and you will note the distribution of these States: Minnesota, Montana, Wisconsin, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, Arkansas, New Hampshire, Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Nebraska. And I would like to read the resolution rather hurriedly here: Concurrent resolution petitioning the Congress of the United States to call a Convention for proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, unless Congress shall sooner have submitted such an amendment, to provide for the election of the President and Vice President in a manner fair and just to the People of the United States. Whereas, under the Constitution of the United States Presidential and Vice Presidential Electors in the several states are now elected on a statewide basis, each state being entitled to as many electors as it has senators and representatives in Congress; and Whereas, the Presidential and Vice Presidential Electors who receive the plurality of the popular vote in a particular state become entitled to cast the total number of electoral votes allocated to that state irrespective of how many votes may have been cast for other Elector candidates; and Whereas, this method of electing the President and Vice President is unfair and unjust in that it does not reflect the minority votes cast; and Whereas, the need for a change has been recognized by members of Congress on numerous occasions through the introduction of various proposals for amending the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That application is hereby made to Congress under Article V of the Constitution of the United States for the calling of a Convention to propose an Article of Amendment to the Constitution providing for a fair and just division of the electoral votes within the States in the election of the President and Vice President; and be it further Resolved, That if and when Congress shall have proposed such an Article of Amendment this application for a Convention shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be no longer of any force effect; and be it further Resolved, That the proper Officer of this State be and he hereby is directed to transmit copies of this application to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, and to the several members of said bodies representing this State therein; also to transmit copies hereof to the Legislatures of all other States of the United States. That is the resolution that has been adopted by 12 States. And I might mention that these resolutions were unanimous in several of the bodies of several of the legislatures and practically unanimous in all the States that passed the resolutions. Senator BAYH. Over what timespan, please, sir? Mr. GOSSETT. We started in 1963. Then we worked a little while and then we quit and started again last year and I do not know when we will resume operations. We have not dissolved. We are still at it. Senator BAYH. All right, thank you. Mr. GOSSETT. Now, let me testify briefly as a former Congressman and as a private citizen deeply interested in this problem. The inequities and absurdities of the electoral college are well known to all of you. Since 1948 numerous amendments have been introduced in both Houses of the Congress to change the electoral college. Voluminous hearings have been held on several occasions, particularly before this honorable subcommittee. We all know that the electoral college has never worked at any time in any way as anticipated by the Founding Fathers. As far back as 1823, Thomas Hart Benton, Senator from Missouri, declared that: Every reason which induced the Convention to institute Electors has failed. They are no longer of any use and may be dangerous to the liberties of the people. The electoral college does great violence to the one-voter, one-vote philosophy so strongly proclaimed by the courts and the Congress in the last several years. The evils of which the courts and the Congress have been complaining fall into two classes: (1) deprivation of voting rights and (2) malapportionment of voting districts. These evils are of small consequence in comparison to the evils of the electoral college. Under the electoral college, not only are votes counted contrary to the way cast but the disparity of the value and weight of the votes of individuals under the present system is fantastic. For example, a bulletin of the American Good Government Society released in 1962, predicated upon the 1960 presidential election, shows that in terms of electoral weight one vote in New York was worth 1,800 times as much as one vote in Alaska. A few other items here and then I will not belabor the record with examples... In the first Lincoln campaign, Stephen A. Douglas, while receiving 74 percent of Lincoln's popular vote, received only 6 percent of his electoral vote. In the Cleveland-Blaine campaign in 1884, a change of 600 votes in the State of New York would have changed the electoral vote of New York and would have changed the result of the election. In 1912, Woodrow Wilson with only 42 percent of the popular vote received 82 percent of the electoral vote. In that campaign, Mr. Wilson received one electoral vote for each 14,500 popular votes, while Mr. Taft got only one electoral vote for each 534,000 popular votes. Taft's electoral votes cost 31 times as much as did Wilson's in terms of popular votes. In the 1924 campaign John W. Davis received 6 million popular votes for which no electoral votes were received. In the 1944 campaign Governor Thomas E. Dewey received 2,663,484 votes in 10 States from which he received 62 electoral votes. While in |