to the loss of weight of their own respective States under the proposal. At this point I ask that the table referred to be included in my statement as a part thereof. And, Mr. Chairman, may I say that we do not carry out for each State the figure to thousandths but only to tenths because we did it by slide rule. But the matter can be carried out to hundredths or thousandths if anyone cares to do it.

Senator BAYH. I think the table as it is computed very aptly conveys the message my colleague from Florida is trying to convey. We will be glad to include it in the record. (The table referred to follows:)

Senator HOLLAND. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is also interesting to note the effect adverse weather conditions may play on the fairness of direct election, nationwide, under the one-man one-vote principle. I have obtained from the Weather Bureau of the Department of Com

merce storm data and unusual weather phenomena occurring during the period November 2 to 8, the period of the month that presidential elections occur, for the years 1959 to 1966.

For example, in 1959, during the period November 2 to 8, all of one State, most of another State and certain areas of 16 other States had unusual weather conditions which would have hindered voters from getting to the polls.

In 1960, certain areas of three States had such conditions; in 1961. nine States had such conditions; in 1963, all of two States and certain areas of eight States had such conditions; in 1964, certain areas of four States had such conditions; in 1965, all of two States and certain areas of 10 States had such conditions.

It is completely clear that in the event nationwide direct election of President and Vice President had occurred in any of the 8 years covered by the weather statistical material, the people of one or more States might not have been able to vote their full weight in comparison with other States of the Nation due to no fault of their own. Of course, adverse weather affects voting in each State, singly, and always has, but the State will still have its full electoral strength and the votes actually cast should be fairly representative of the attitude of the people of the State as a whole.

In the event the committee would be interested in the breakdown by States of the unusual weather conditions, I have it available here for your use. The list we have shows clearly during early November, or November 2 to 8, which cover all the dates on which the election could occur under the Constitution, violent weather has occurred in one or more States in every year covered by the period of our research which was the 10 years stated already in my statement.

The district plan, as proposed in Senate Resolution 12, where two State electoral votes are awarded for each Senator on a statewide basis and one for each separate congressional district in the State, recognizes the federal system, but it is subject to a marked degree of human and political control and manipulation by those who control the machinery of State government. Besides, the winner-take-all principle would still apply statewide to the two statewide electoral votes and would also apply, in each district, to the district electoral votes. Then, too, there are substantial population shifts and changes that take place between the decennial censuses for which compensation cannot be made. Many who have supported this plan in the past may now have second thoughts in the light of the decisions in the legislative apportionment cases which will be discussed later. However, this plan is still eminently preferable over the present system or that of popular election.

The proportional method of selecting the President and Vice President, which I advocate, is in complete harmony with our constitutional forms. It is precise and not subject to political manipulation or human frailties. It is fair to the States, both small and large, and it gives to each and every qualified elector in a State the right to have his vote counted for his candidate for President and Vice President. I firmly believe that a State should be entitled to electoral votes proportionate to its total representation in Congress.

I further feel that the electoral vote of each State should be divided between candidates in the exact proportion in which the total vote of that State is cast. This is substantially, the same plan that was con

tained in the proposed Lodge-Gossett amendment for which I was proud to cast my vote in 1950 when it was adopted in the Senate by a vote of 64 to 27. I have introduced Senate Joint Resolution 7, which contains this substantial language:

Each person for whom votes were cast for President in each State shall be credited with such portion of the electoral vote 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 computation, fractional numbers less than one thousandth of an electoral vote shall be disregarded. The person having the greatest number of electoral votes for President shall be the 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 person having the three highest number of electoral votes for President, the Senate and 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.

The adoption of this language will effect a basic, far-reaching and necessary reform in our constitutional method for selecting a President and Vice President and provide for the retention of the "federal system" and will preserve the political dual identity of the States and regions in the administration of vital matters, such as age, residence, registration, and absentee voting requirements.

Mr. Chairman, I covered these matters completely in my statement last year, and I am therefore not going into them in detail but in my mind it is perfectly clear if the popular vote should become a part of the Constitution that very shortly thereafter all of the States would have to follow the federalized uniform pattern as to voting requirements and all those things which are now reposing in the judgment of the people of the respective States.

Mr. Chairman, the historical arguments as to why the electoral college system should be reformed have been stated and restated in the past with such power, force, and eloquence that I am reluctant to advert to them now and do not believe that it is necessary to inform and enlighten the members of this committee and the people on the issues. Committee hearings of both the House and Senate, and the Congressional Record are replete with these arguments. The urgent need today is to examine and weigh on the scales of judgment new evidence and new developments that have effect and influence on the issue involved.

We are all familiar with the decision of the Supreme Court on March 26, 1962 in the case of Baker vs. Carr, commonly known as the Tennessee Legislative Reapportionment case which lead to requiring the one-man one-vote as applied in setting up State legislative districts. We know of the Court's decision in Wesberry vs. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, which extended the doctrine of the one-man one-vote to the setting up of districts for the election of Members of the House of Representatives.

Since the 17th article of amendment was enacted subsequent to the 14th, it is pleasant for us Senators to suppose that we Senators are safely beyond the reach of the Court. But, when one considers how

far the actual election of a President and Vice President has in fact departed from the electoral college concept written into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers, a serious question is presented.

Mr. Arthur Schlesinger, in his book, "Paths to the Present," describes what happened in this language, and I quote:

What demoted the electoral college from a deliberative body to a puppet show was the rise of political parties. As people began taking sides on public questions, they were unwilling to leave the crucial choice of the Chief Executive to a sort of lottery. Instead, each party publicly announced its slate of electors and the candidate they would support. This usurpation of the electors' functions, though peaceably achieved, amounted to a coup d'etat. It was an amendment of the written Constitution by the unwritten Constitution. The electors, while retaining the legal status of independence, became henceforth hardly more than men in livery taking orders from their parties.

In the opinion of many, of whom I am one, the Supreme Court of today has, in fact, acted in an extra-legal and supraconstitutional manner. Acting as it has, would it not be entirely within the realm of possibility for the Supreme Court to assert its judicial power if it felt that great masses of citizens in these United States were being denied equal protection of the laws in having their vote for President and Vice President discarded because they failed to vote for the candidate or candidates that received the highest number of votes.

In any event, it would be most appropriate for Congress and the States to implement the principle of fair and proportionate districting of areas from which public officers are to be elected by providing for the division of the electoral vote of a State in accordance with the proportionate vote received by the candidate.

The trials and tribulations of the electoral college system have differed from election to election. The election of 1948 dramatically illustrated how third party movements and splinter parties could so dilute the vote between candidates that the States' electoral vote would be cast to candidates receiving less than a majority of the popular vote. In the States of California, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee and Virginia in that year, where the total popular vote amounted to 19,985,102 the candidate carrying the entire State electoral vote for a total of 184, received less than a majority of the popular vote. That is in each of those States, Mr. Chairman. There is no way to predict what will happen in regard to the future of third and splinter parties. But historically, one thing that is certain regarding national politics is the uncertainty of what will develop.

In the 1948 election in Florida, which I have the honor to represent in part, 577,643 votes were cast. The Truman-Barkley ticket received 281,988 votes, or 49 percent of the total vote against 194,280 votes, or 33 percent of the total vote for the Dewey-Warren ticket; 89,755, or 16 percent, of the total vote for the Thurmond-Wright ticket, and 11,620, or 2 percent of the total vote for the Wallace-Taylor ticket. The Truman-Barkley ticket received all 8 electoral votes, but under my resolution the total electoral vote would have been distributed-the Turman-Barkley ticket receiving 3.9 electoral votes, the DeweyWarren ticket receiving 2.6, the Thurmond-Wright ticket receiving 1.3, and the Wallace-Taylor ticket receiving 0.2 of the electoral vote. No voting citizen would have been disenfranchised.

In 1960 the presidential election was so close that the winning candidate received 49.7 percent of the popular vote and the losing candi

date 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 the electoral reform is 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. Further, the point was made that the one-party system created such apathy in general national elections that only a fraction of the population turned out to vote. There have been fundamental changes in the voting patterns of Southern States that eliminate completely any validity that these arguments might have had in earlier years 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 56.5 percent of its vote for the Democratic candidates, 39.4 percent for the Republican; Arkansas, 52.5 percent Democratic, 45.8 percent Republican; Florida 42.7 percent Democratic, 57.3 percent Republican; Georgia 66.8 percent Democratic, 32.8 percent Republican; Louisiana 39.5 Democratic, 53.3 percent Republican, 7.2 percent unpledged; Mississippi 58.2 percent Democratic, 24.5 percent Republican, 17.3 percent unpledged; North Carolina 49.3 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, 44.0 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 percent Democratic, 51.5 percent Republican; Georgia 62.6 percent 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 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 percent Democratic, 56.81 percent Republican; Mississippi 12.86 percent Democratic, 87.14 percent Republican; North Carolina 56.15 percent Democratic, 43.85 percent Republican; South Carolina 41.1 percent Democratic, 58.9 percent Republican; Tennessee 55.6 percent Democratic, 44.4 percent Republican; Texas 63.46 percent Democratic, 36.54 percent Republican; and Virginia 53.82 percent Democratic, 46.18 percent Republican.

90-902-68-29