enumerated there, with an electoral vote of 184, a minority candidate received a total electoral vote of that State, meaning, that he not only received the electoral vote in contradiction of the votes cast for the next major candidate, but the electoral vote in contradiction with the votes cast for the splinter candidates. So that the total electoral vote of 184 as voted in that presidential election by candidates who had received in each case less than a majority of the votes in that State and who in each case had been voted against by a sizable majority of the voters in that particular State.

There is no way to predict what will happen in regard to the future of third and splinter parties. But historically, one thing is certain regarding national politics is the uncertainty of what will develop. I would like to call attention, outside of my prepared remarks, to the results of the 1948 election in my own State. I suppose each of us follows the election returns more carefully, if possible, in his own State than anywhere else. I think that my own State in that year illustrates several of the points which I have made. First is, that President Truman, who received the entire electoral vote of the State, received less than a majority of the total votes cast for presidential electors-very near a majority, about 49 percent. But the other candidates, Mr. Dewey, Governor Thurmond, and Mr. Wallace received between them 51 percent of the votes and I think that the figures which you will have in other parts of your hearing should probably be relied upon because they show this not only for Florida, but for many, many other States.

In my own State let me say that the Truman ticket, the highest voted-for elector, received 281,988 votes, the highest Thurmond elector received 89,755 votes, the highest Dewey elector received 104,180 votes and the highest Wallace elector received 11, 620 vctes.

I think that one more of the travesties—one other of the travesties which exist in this field is shown in the case of the 1948 election in my own State by the very large differences in voting strength between some of the electors and each of these groups and other of the electors in the same group. This same fact has resulted, of course, in the electoral votes of some States being divided in a few cases which I shall not go into at this time. But I do want to call attention to this fact in my own State because the highest voted-for elector on the Truman slate received 281,988 votes in that election, the lowest voted-for elector on the Truman slate received 269,182 votes, or a difference of more than 4 percent between the highest voted-for elector and the lowest voted-for elector in connection with the Truman-Barkley slate. In the case of the Thurmond slate, the highest voted-for elector received, as I already stated, 89,755 votes whereas the lowest voted for elector received 83,915 votes. I have not prepared the percentage in that case which can easily be reached if anyone is interested. As to the Dewey electors, the Republicans seemed to be able to read the names. of their electoral candidates better than anybody else because the variations are smaller in that case. The highest voted-for elector in those supporting the Dewey-Warren ticket was 149,280 votes and the lowest voted-for elector received 188,413 votes.

In the case of the Wallace electors, they seemed to be highly literate, also, and the highest elector received 11,620 votes and the lowest 10,369 votes.

I cite these facts and figures simply because it shows what a ridiculous thing this present constitutional provision can become when, as in many States, a State requires the election to be of individual electors who differ, of course, in popularity and in their standing and stature state-wide as amongst themselves so that the vote for them varies considerably.

I have digressed this long enough to say whether the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, looking at the election returns for that particular election in which he had a very vital interest, first conceived the idea of trying to reform something in our electorate system because it is so apparent from looking at the returns how far afield we have gone and how completely undemocratic the process is-a perfectly legal process because the present Constitution says that the electors shall be named in such method as the legislature of the particular State may impose. I am not trying to quote: that is the substance of it.

I have here all of the returns from every presidential election since that time in my own State. I shall not weary the subcommittee by adverting to them in such detail, because I think that the Truman election in 1948 is probably the soundest illustration of how far afield we go when we have splinter parties; and in that instance we had two splinter-party candidates in my own State and there were more in some of the other States as this subcommittee well knows.

I do believe, however, that in most States that year there were splinter-party candidates.

In 1960 the presidential election was so close that the winning candidate received 49.7 percent of the popular vote and the losing candidate 49.5. Although there was only two-tenths of 1 percent difference in the popular vote, the electoral vote was 303 to 219 in favor of the leading candidate. There is obviously something wrong with a system that spells out an end result such as this when the popular vote is almost identical.

Another of the traditional and oft repeated arguments against any character of electoral reform is-I have heard this so often and I do not think I am giving any information to the committee-that the South is a single-party area and that the top-heavy and overwhelming majorities it gives to Democratic candidates is unfair to the splits that exist elsewhere in the country. That comment could have been made with soundness some years ago and couldn't be made at this time and could not be made since the 1948 election. Further, the point was made that only a fraction of the population turned out to vote. That could have been made in the rather remote past better than it could at the present time. There have been fundamental changes in the voting patterns of Southern States that eliminate completely any validity that these arguments might contain against electoral reform.

First, let us examine what has happened to the "one-party South" in the elections since electoral reform was last considered in the Senate. In the presidential election of 1956, Alabama cast 56.6 percent of its vote for the Democratic candidate, 39.4 percent for the Republican; Arkansas 52.5 percent Democratic, 45.8 percent Republican: Florida, 42.7 percent Democratic, 57.3 Republican; Georgia, 66.8 percent Democratic, 32.8 percent Republican; Louisiana, 39.5 percent Democratic, 53.3 percent Republican, 7.2 percent unpledged; Missis

sippi, 58.2 percent Democratic, 24.5 percent Republican, 17.3 percent unpledged; North Carolina, 50.7 percent Democratic, 49.7 percent Republican; South Carolina, 45.4 percent Democratic, 25.2 percent Republican, 29.4 percent unpledged; Tennessee, 48.6 percent Republican, 49.2 percent Democratic; Texas, 44 percent Democratic, 55.3 percent Republican; and Virginia, 38.4 percent Democratic, 55.4 percent Republican. That was in 1956.

In the 1960 presidential election Alabama cast 56.9 percent Democratic votes, 41.8 percent Republican; Arkansas 50.2 percent Democratic, 43.1 percent Republican; Florida, 48.5 Democratic, 51.5 Republican; Georgia, 62.6 Democratic, 37.4 percent Republican; Louisiana, 50.4 percent Democratic, 28.6 percent Republican, 21 percent independent; Mississippi, 36.32 percent Democratic, 24.7 percent Republican, 39 percent unpledged; North Carolina, 52.1 percent Democratic, 47.9 percent Republican; South Carolina, 51.2 percent Democratic, 48.8 percent Republican; Tennessee, 45.8 percent Democratic, 52.9 percent Republican; Texas, 50.5 percent Democratic, 48.5 percent Republican; and Virginia, 47.0 percent Democratic and 52.4 percent Republican.

In 1964 no votes were registered in Alabama for the Democratic candidate, the Republican received 69.54 percent of the total and the balance went to unpledged electors. In Arkansas the vote was 56.59 percent Democratic, 43.41 percent Republican: Florida, 51.15 percent Democratic, 48.85 percent Republican; Georgia, 45.88 percent Democratic, 54.12 percent Republican; Louisiana, 43.19 Democratic, 56.81 percent Republican; Mississippi, 12.86 percent Democratic, 87.14 percent Republican; North Carolina, 56.12 percent Democratic, 43.85 percent Republican; South Carolina, 41.1 percent Democratic, 58.9 percent Republican; Tennessee, 55.6 percent Democratic, 44.4 Republican; Texas, 63.46 percent Democratic, 36.54 percent Republican; and Virginia, 53.82 percent Democratic, 46.18 percent Republican. If there was ever any reason for stating, and I think there was, that the South was a one-party area, that reason has certainly gone out the window since 1952 elections and I have given in the record the figures including the 1956, 1960, and 1964 elections which speak for themselves.

They not only show that the South is not one party, but they make a fine illustration of what unpledged electors and splinter party candidates can do, if I may use the word, messing up the whole picture under the present constitutional electoral college provisions.

These percentages reflect a very healthy balance between the two major parties in the Southern States. In the foreseeable future there is no reason to assume that the pattern will change. In fact, there are indications that the Republican Party will continue to grow and thrive in the South. On the other side of the coin, there has been a marked change of voting habit in those States that were formerly famous for their rock-ribbed Republicanism, such as Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. In the 1964 election the Democratic candidate carried Maine 262,224 to 118,701. Johnson carried New Hampshire 182.065 to 104,029. He carried Vermont 107,674 to 54,868. The twoparty system is now a reality throughout the entire United States, whether it be in the South, the formally rock-ribbed Republican areas of the North, East, or anywhere else in the United States; people are voting in patterns which are certainly two-party patterns

and frequently in patterns which demonstrate conclusively the diffi culties presented by splinter parties and by independent electors as well as by electors who refuse to follow the party mandate, but to vote when they come to the electoral college in accordance with their own views and without considering any mandate which they received at home.

Competition between the parties for votes, coupled with the elimination of the poll tax as a prerequisite in voting in the election of national officers and the application of the voting rights provisions of the various Civil Rights Acts, resulted in a marked increase in the total number of votes cast in the general election for President and Vice President. In a few more elections, there will be no substantial difference between the percentage of the total vote cast in Southern States from that cast in other areas of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, there will never be a better time than the present to completely overhaul the ancient and outworn machinery of the electoral college. This is and should be an absolute nonpartisan effort. The present occupant of the White House voted in 1956 in favor of the Daniel compromise amendment, which permitted States the choice. between the proportional and district plan of reform. That is, it would have required them to choose between the Mundt and the so-called Lodge-Gossett approach. Both living former Presidents of the United States, Truman and Eisenhower, have communicated with this subcommittee and expressed agreement that change should be made in the method of selecting our President and Vice President. If I am mistaken about their having communicated their views to this subcommittee, I might say they have communicated them to the general public by way of the general communications media in an unmistakable way. Both our former living Presidents are strongly insisting upon the validity of the effort to reform our electoral procedures. In my judg ment no plan has yet been advanced, which preserves and safeguards our federal system, that better achieves the result of fair and democratic reform of the electoral system, than does the proportional plan which I now propose. I urge its acceptance by both this subcommittee and the full Judiciary. I also request that the complete text of my resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 139, be printed in the record of the hearing at this point. I thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I will be very glad to submit to any questions that you or other members of the committee may have and I thank you for letting me proceed thus far, relatively without interruption.

Senator BAYH. Well, I want to express the appreciation of the subcommittee for the study and foresight that you bring in your testimony. We will ask that your resolution be included once again at this particular time to maintain continuity, in addition to its inclusion at the beginning of the discussion.

(S. J. Res. 139 follows:)

[S.J. Res. 139, 89th Cong., second Sess.]

JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the election of the President and Vice President

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the

Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

"ARTICLE

"SECTION 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during a term of four years, and together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected as provided in this Constitution. No person constitutionally ineligible for the office of Presi dent shall be eligible for that of Vice President of the United States.

"Each State shall 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 may be entitled in the Congress. Such electoral votes shall be cast, in the manner provided by section 3 of this article, upon the basis of an election in which the people of such State shall cast their votes for President and for Vice President. The voters in each State in any such election shall have the qualifications requisite for persons voting for members of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.

"The Congress shall determine the time of such election, which shall be the same throughout the United States. Until otherwise determined by the Congress, such election shall be held on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November of the year preceding the year in which the regular term of the President is to begin.

"SEC. 2. In such election within any State, each voter by one ballot shall cast his vote for President and his vote for Vice President. The name of any person may be placed upon any ballot for President or for Vice President only with the consent of such person.

"Within forty-five days after the election, or at such time as the Congress shall direct, the official custodian of the election returns of each State shall prepare, sign, certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate, a list of all persons for whom votes were cast for President and a separate list of all persons for whom votes were cast for Vice President. Upon each such list there shall be entered the number of votes cast for each person whose name appears thereon, and the total number of votes cast in such State for all persons whose names appear thereon.

"SEC. 3. On the 6th day of January following the election, unless the Congress by law appoints a different day not earlier than the 4th day of January and not later than the 10th day of January, the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the electoral votes shall then be counted. Each person for whom votes were cast for President in each State shall be be credited with such proportion of the electoral votes thereof as he received of the total vote of the electors therein for President, and each person for whom votes were cast for Vice President in each State shall be credited with such proportion of the electoral votes thereof as he received of the total vote of the electors therein for Vice President. In making the computations, fractional numbers less than one thousand shall be disregarded. The person having the greatest number of electoral votes for President shall be President, if such number be at least 40 per centum of the whole number of such electoral votes. If no person has at least 40 per centum of the whole number of electoral votes, then from the persons having the three highest number of electoral votes for President, the Senate and the House of Representatives sitting in joint session shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. A majority of the votes of the combined authorized membership of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be necessary for a choice.

"The Vice President shall be likewise elected, at the same time and in the same manner and subject to the same provisions, as the President, but no person constitutionally ineligible for the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States.

"SEC. 4. If, at the time fixed for the counting of the electoral votes as provided in section 3, the presidential candidate who would have been entitled to receive a majority of the electoral votes for President has died, the vice-presidential candidate who is entitled to receive the majority of the electoral votes for Vice President shall become President-elect.

"SEC. 5. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate and House of Representatives may choose a President or a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have