Изображения страниц

the splinter parties can pick up a few here and a few there tend to weaken the strong two-party system?

Senator MUNDr. That is a good point. We have to think collectively to be sure of what we do. There is nothing whatsoever to weakenI think we are all agreed there is nothing like the two-party system. We like it either way, whether we win or lose. We have to think that through. We are interested in the expression of Senator Holland and he answered the question of the Senator from Nebraska because, if I am correct in my analysis, the strongest argument--and I am against the alternatives as against the present system, against the proportionate system, as against even a direct vote if in fact this is something we want to retain—is the retention of a two-party system. I believe that the district system is a sure safeguard to this retention, and let me tell you why. It is discouraging to a third party not to have any evidence of success when they count the votes at the end of election day. They say the Republicans have so many, Democrats have so many, and stop. It is kind of discouraging when he is tying up money, running like Norman Thomas does—and you say he received no votes. How does it work out in the district system? You have a little contest in every district and, for them to show they have an elector, they have to carry a district. Now, they might carry two, three, or four districts. But that would not be very many. Under the popular vote reported on the big net works the Republicans have so many, the Democrats have so many, Independents have so many, and likewise the Communists, and what not, they are there and they get there to a certain extent under the proportional system also, which is one of the reasons I am worried about the proportional system. They have a certain percentage that is recorded. But under this they have to carry a district to get recorded. You have to have an elector.

Let's say when Vito Marcantonio-when he was in the Congress, when Senator Hruska and I were in there—would be only one out of 435. So that I think that you discourage a proliferation of parties more by the district system than any other way because it has to have some national base to have any significant vote. It cannot be just a localized one, where you conceivably could have in the city of Chicago a great big strong third party that might captivate the whole voting populace of the city of Chicago and show quite a strong third-party surge domiciled in just one particular county of America. You cannot do that under the district system because they have to carry some districts and they would show up with maybe 20 electors.

Senator Bayh. Do you not think it goes to the final determination as to which is most important in our deliberations here—the vote total, which without the delegates or the electors really is insignificant, or the accomplishment of electors in the district? I do not want to pursue that, but maybe that is a thought.

Senator MUNDT. Insofar as it is important and I think it is important that we do nothing in changing the machinery which would encourage the proliferation of political parties and give us a multiplicity of parties and drive us to a coalition government--none of us want that-insofar as the changes we make would discourage that march in the wrong direction, I say we have the best sa feguards in the district plan of any of the proposed changes which are up for consideration, including the popular vote, because you cannot develop much enthusi

asm for the building up of a third party unless some place you get
some publicity and you have made some headway and made some
progress. In the popular vote system the votes show that. In the elec-
toral votes system they have to get some elector votes. You have to be
able to have some sort of national basis or the number of votes they
pay for is so small that they would get few electoral votes.

Senator Bayh. One last question, and this is sort of philosophical.
I want to get your thoughts for the record.

You mentioned in your statement the fact that we now really have a presidential United States and a congressional United States. As far as elections, this is true. I wonder what your thoughts would be about this question: Is it necessarily bad to subidivide the presidential United States into districts which very well could be congressional districts so you would really have one congressional United Statesdoes this weaken our tripartite form of government and hence

Senator MUNDT. This is a very penetrating question. I want to answer it this way. I am not sure that it is necessarily bad to have a presidential United States and a congressional United States, but I think that it is something which should be called to the attention of people who are working with this.

As an old House Member I have a predisposition to kind of favor the idea of House Members to have a 4-year term. I would not be against that except built into that is also a tendency to have a presidential Congress, it seems to me. If they can do it in different year's it would be different.

Senator BAYH. When we have hearings on this we will ask you to come back and testify.

Senator MUNDT. I have an amendment of my own which I have not introduced, but in all events, I am not sure that is wrong. This is part of our checks and balances system. This is something we ought to consider as we move around in these areas, that you do have this, and this is one of the reasons you so frequently have a rather strong majority party which is without a working majority. That is why you have this. But it is to be pointed out that at least you have a different constituency involved in the matter. The change involved in this particular proposal would materially alter that in terms of giving the Congress or the President more power. But it is a factor which we should consider.

Senator Bayh. I certainly appreciate your more than patient effort to help us and give us the benefit of your knowledge. I hope we can feel free to call on you.

Senator Mundr. I am delighted you are working with this. I really believe that both the changes and Supreme Court decisions, which are changes in the Constitution, and also the trend of our mobile population into big urban areas and the trends which I have supported, eliminating inequalities, passing civil rights legislation—those three all move in the direction of having electoral college reform.

Senator Bayn. One more additional question. Resolution 5, 8, and 12 have one thing in common. That is their efforts to make more equitable the procedure for choosing the Presi. dent and Vice President in the event that no candidate gets a majority of the electoral vote. In this area Senator Holland is very much opposed. He felt that this would be an imposition on the smaller States,

[ocr errors]

that would be taking away something they now have and thus make it very difficult to get ratified.

Senator MUNDr. Yes, ratification, but one thing I do not like very well about the proposal that Senator Holland was espousing, we go a long way from the regionl concept of the majority rule and the majority President-if we go away from that we are going to increase the likelihood of minority presidents. It seems to me that we set in operation, machinery, if I understand the proposal, whereby quite frequently we will come up with a President for whom more than half the people did not vote. It could happen under the district system. But when you set into motion machinery that proposes to say if you get 40 percent of the vote it is enough, you accept two conclusions.

One is, you expect that your change is going to defeat the proliferation of splinter parties where you are going to have them spread all over the place and, secondly, we all think it is better for them to have 51 or 52 percent. When you get into a computer system of fragmentizing the votes, you have to come down to something like 40 percent. To me it is something to think over pretty carefully, whether we as a great democracy want to accept that as standard operating procedure.

Senator Bayh. It seems that your proposal and our proposal—and we are discussing them all—come closer to maintaining the basis of proportionate voting strength in the electoral college, whether you break it up district wise or maintain the present or proportionate system. In the event the election is moved into the Congress, you have the same weight, Senators and Congressmen. So far as equity is concerned, it is much preferable to what we have now. Whether we could get it ratified is another thing.

Senator MUNDT. It is a question of give and take. We are working in the same general psychology of human differences that the constitutional forefathers worked in. I quite agree. If we are going to give them that, then we should relinquish, take the foot off the neck of the public where they have these big blocs of votes. They record in the electoral college not only the number and percentage of the many millions that entitle them to 43 votes, they not only say that this State gives its votes to so and so, but in order to give greater weight to the fact the they are a big State and under this system they take all the votes cast for losing candidates and add them to the votes of winning candidates and say he got all 43. At least the proportional system recognizes the inequity of that. I would welcome that way in breaking up the result. I think district system gives you a greater benefit the same way without some new constitutional changes. The proportional system brings you down some new paths and into a new morass like the proliferation of parties and acceptance of a general concept that less than 50 is what we are shooting at.

Now, there are some built-in things that kind of concern me in the long run.

Senator Bayh. Thank you very much. We apologize for keeping you so long.

(Whereupon at 1 o'clock p.m., the subcommittee adjourned to re convene on Tuesday, March 1, 1966, at 10 a.m.)




Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:10 a.m., in room G-308, New Senate Office Building, Senator Bayh presiding.

Present: Senator Bavh.
Senator BAYH. We will convene this morning's session.

We are privileged to have with us the distinguished colleague from the great State of Alabama who has done so much in the Congress.

I am happy to have you here, Senator, realizing that you are taking time from an extremely busy schedule. I know you have to go to two other places this morning.



Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your hearing me this morning. My statement is not very long.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear in behalf of Senate Joint Resolution 138. Senators Ervin, Dodd, and Saltonstall have cosponsored the proposal with me in this session.

The resolution provides for the elimination of presidential electors, or probably better, the electoral college as such. But it provides for the same electoral votes on the same basis as at the present time. Each State would have the same number of electoral votes as provided for in the Constitution now. Each State's electoral votes would be divided among the candidates in proportion to their share of the total popular vote in the State. Of course, Mr. Chairman, you recognize that this is the old Lodge-Gossett resolution.

I supported a proposal of this type when I first entered the House nearly 30 years ago, and I have backed it since I came to the Senate. As the Lodge-Gossett proposal, this concept received Senate approval by the necessary two-thirds vote in 1950. Although 1950 was the legislative high water mark for the proposal to this time, I believe it has since been reported twice by the Judiciary Committee. I hope it will be reported again and that both Houses will approve it for subsequent ratification by three-fourths of the States,

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, electors should be abolished, firstly, because they are outmoded. Our Founding Fathers were concerned and reasonably so, that a citizen in Georgia could not have the opportunity to evaluate the qualifications of a New England

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »