ticated political systems than our political system, have much greater records of participation in voting for both their legislators and for their chief executive officers. The populace in some countries that are largely illiterate have exercised the franchise to a startling degree, whereas, we in this country have not. I believe this is the beginning of the cure to that lethargy that keeps our people from fully participating in the democratic process.

Senator BAYH. I am glad you pointed this out. It seems to me that although one of the real fears that some of us initially held regarding the damage that the direct election would do to the two-party system. on closer study, reveals that it will strengthen it. I am convinced of that.

Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. I am, too.

Senator BAYH. It will have its greatest strength in those areas, whether Kansas or Virginia, which have traditionally been aligned with one political party. This will remove the sense of frustration on the part of many who belong to the minority party, because in a direct election their vote will count as much in the final tally is members of the majority who vote.

Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. I agree with that. I want to say in passing that since I left Virginia, things have gotten a lot better. I do not know whether that had anything to do with it or not, but things are a lot better in that State now, in that Commonwealth.

Senator BAYH. Perhaps I used a bad example.

Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. I just wanted to clear the record so I did not smear the fair name of Virginia, which I think is becoming more and more free in the electoral process.

Senator BAYH. The vein in which I referred was merely the political record, the fact that Virginia, regardless of which faction of the Democratic Party is in control, is pretty solidly in the Democratic camp. At least it has been. Thus, Republicans would be frustrated, just as you refer to one faction of the Democratic Party being frustrated.

Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. This is almost irrelevant, but I would like to clear this up. The single faction of the Democratic Party which has been in control in Virginia for many years is Republican. I know that sounds like an anomaly, but I say to you that that faction of the Democratic Party has taken the State consistently into the Republican column on the election of President and Vice President. I am sorry I got into that, but I thought it might be helpful.

Third, is the possibility of presidential electors voting against the national candidates of their party. This is perhaps the most antidemocratic potentiality of the present system, and may become a reality in two ways. First, the laws of some States permit the election of a slate of unpledged electors if they are nominated in the party primaries. These electors may vote as they please. We have seen the realization of this possibility in 1948 and 1964 when unpledged electors created a situation where the Democratic candidate for President did not appear on the ballot in several States. Because the election of either the national Democratic or Republican candidates was virtually certain, the citizens of those States were effectively foreclosed from playing any role in the selection of the Nation's highest officials. Even more harmful to democratic processes is the possibility that a maverick pledged elector will vote against his party's candidates. A plan to do

just that in the 1960 election was uncovered by this subcommittee during its 1961 hearings.

he

May I just say, Mr. Chairman, that the immorality of an elector, the possibility of an immoral act of an elector voting against the way is instructed to vote by the voters who go into the secret ballot place and cast their vote for the President, and it is a fix, because our people do not know who the electors are, they do not know what their personalities are, they do not even know their names, they do not know when they vote or how they vote. They think they are voting for the President and Vice President of the United States, and when they are doublecrossed, it is a serious blot on American democracy. I say to you that the philosophy of the constitutional amendment that you have in mind would cure and erase that blot from our society.

Fourth, because each State, regardless of population, has a minimum of three electoral votes, disproportionate vote weightings are structurally built into the system; the votes of citizens of the smallest States are given more than their fair value. This is clearly contrary to the one-man one-vote application of the principle of equality. And yet, we have recently seen court attacks on the electoral college system by several of the small States, notably Delaware and others. This is because in a situation where the popular vote in a State is close, an individual's vote may become decisive. And the decisive vote in the large State will swing a larger number of electoral votes than in the small States. Thus, in different ways the citizens of the larger and the smaller States are disadvantaged.

Not only is there built-in disproportionality because of the three-vote minimum, but between censuses there is no adjustment of electoral vote allocation for population changes, thus further increasing and ensuring disproportionality.

Last, but very far from the least objectionable, is the machinery that presently exists for situations where no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes. In these cases, the House of Representatives chooses the President, each State having one equal vote. At this point, any resemblance to majority rule becomes purely coincidental.

I turn now from the proven faults of the present electoral college system to the criticisms and doubts that have been voiced about a change to direct election of the President and Vice President.

It has been said that direct election will endanger the two-party system by encouraging splinter parties to run candidates for national office. The proposed amendment has been drawn carefully to discourage such a development.

If I may add a personal note, I congratulate you, Senator, on the draftsmanship of the amendment. Not only is the principle good, but it is well drafted.

Senator BAYH. Thank you.

Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. The nominee of any election must have a minimum of 40 percent of the vote cast-hardly a likelihood for any minor party candidate. In some ways direct election will strengthen the two-party system. The possibility of maverick electors splintering from and weakening one of the major parties will be eliminated. Never again would we see the ludicrous situations of 1948 and 1964, when the candidate who was actually elected did not appear on the ballot in several States.

90-902-68- -44

ticated political systems than our political system, have much greater records of participation in voting for both their legislators and for their chief executive officers. The populace in some countries that are largely illiterate have exercised the franchise to a startling degree, whereas, we in this country have not. I believe this is the beginning of the cure to that lethargy that keeps our people from fully participating in the democratic process.

Senator BAYH. I am glad you pointed this out. It seems to me that although one of the real fears that some of us initially held regarding the damage that the direct election would do to the two-party system. on closer study, reveals that it will strengthen it. I am convinced of that.

Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. I am, too.

Senator BAYH. It will have its greatest strength in those areas, whether Kansas or Virginia, which have traditionally been aligned with one political party. This will remove the sense of frustration on the part of many who belong to the minority party, because in a direct election their vote will count as much in the final tally is members of the majority who vote.

Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. I agree with that. I want to say in passing that since I left Virginia, things have gotten a lot better. I do not know whether that had anything to do with it or not, but things are a lot better in that State now, in that Commonwealth.

Senator BAYH. Perhaps I used a bad example.

Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. I just wanted to clear the record so I did not smear the fair name of Virginia, which I think is becoming more and more free in the electoral process.

Senator BAYH. The vein in which I referred was merely the political record, the fact that Virginia, regardless of which faction of the Democratic Party is in control, is pretty solidly in the Democratic camp. At least it has been. Thus, Republicans would be frustrated, just as you refer to one faction of the Democratic Party being frustrated.

Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. This is almost irrelevant, but I would like to clear this up. The single faction of the Democratic Party which has been in control in Virginia for many years is Republican. I know that sounds like an anomaly, but I say to you that that faction of the Democratic Party has taken the State consistently into the Republican column on the election of President and Vice President. I am sorry I got into that, but I thought it might be helpful.

Third, is the possibility of presidential electors voting against the national candidates of their party. This is perhaps the most antidemocratic potentiality of the present system, and may become a reality in two ways. First, the laws of some States permit the election of a slate of unpledged electors if they are nominated in the party primaries. These electors may vote as they please. We have seen the realization of this possibility in 1948 and 1964 when unpledged electors created a situation where the Democratic candidate for President did not appear on the ballot in several States. Because the election of either the national Democratic or Republican candidates was virtually certain, the citizens of those States were effectively foreclosed from playing any role in the selection of the Nation's highest officials. Even more harmful to democratic processes is the possibility that a maverick pledged elector will vote against his party's candidates. A plan to do

just that in the 1960 election was uncovered by this subcommittee during its 1961 hearings.

May I just say, Mr. Chairman, that the immorality of an elector, the possibility of an immoral act of an elector voting against the way he is instructed to vote by the voters who go into the secret ballot place and cast their vote for the President, and it is a fix, because our people do not know who the electors are, they do not know what their personalities are, they do not even know their names, they do not know when they vote or how they vote. They think they are voting for the President and Vice President of the United States, and when they are doublecrossed, it is a serious blot on American democracy. I say to you that the philosophy of the constitutional amendment that you have in mind would cure and erase that blot from our society.

Fourth, because each State, regardless of population, has a minimum of three electoral votes, disproportionate vote weightings are structurally built into the system; the votes of citizens of the smallest States are given more than their fair value. This is clearly contrary to the one-man one-vote application of the principle of equality. And yet, we have recently seen court attacks on the electoral college system by several of the small States, notably Delaware and others. This is because in a situation where the popular vote in a State is close, an individual's vote may become decisive. And the decisive vote in the large State will swing a larger number of electoral votes than in the small States. Thus, in different ways the citizens of the larger and the smaller States are disadvantaged.

Not only is there built-in disproportionality because of the three-vote minimum, but between censuses there is no adjustment of electoral vote allocation for population changes, thus further increasing and ensuring disproportionality.

Last, but very far from the least objectionable, is the machinery that presently exists for situations where no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes. In these cases, the House of Representatives chooses the President, each State having one equal vote. At this point, any resemblance to majority rule becomes purely coincidental.

I turn now from the proven faults of the present electoral college. system to the criticisms and doubts that have been voiced about a change to direct election of the President and Vice President.

It has been said that direct election will endanger the two-party system by encouraging splinter parties to run candidates for national office. The proposed amendment has been drawn carefully to discourage such a development.

If I may add a personal note, I congratulate you, Senator, on the draftsmanship of the amendment. Not only is the principle good, but it is well drafted.

Senator BAYH. Thank you.

Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. The nominee of any election must have a minimum of 40 percent of the vote cast-hardly a likelihood for any minor party candidate. In some ways direct election will strengthen the two-party system. The possibility of maverick electors splintering from and weakening one of the major parties will be eliminated. Never again would we see the ludicrous situations of 1948 and 1964, when the candidate who was actually elected did not appear on the ballot in several States.

90-902-68 -44

Second, it is said that the electoral college machinery provides a counterbalance to the disproportional congressional districting which has traditionally favored the rural portions of our country. To this we say the cure must be by extension of the principle of equality, of one man, one vote, to all areas, not by offsetting one undemocratic, inequitable institution with another.

The need for making the change to direct popular election is particularly compelling at this time. We are seeing today a fragmentation of political groupings that may well result in there being minor party candidates of both the left and the right attracting substantial numbers of voters in coming presidential elections. The fact that there may be such candidates-and that they may attract substantial support-will signify different things to different people. But the one possibility that it clearly raises for all of us is that no one candidate may receive a majority of the electoral votes, and that consequently, elections will be thrown into the House of Representatives. This is an eventuality that I think no one will welcome, be he a member of the majority or minority party in the House for, as I noted earlier, when an election goes to the House all semblance of majority choice breaks down.

In conclusion, I would like to note several of the salutary byproducts that would accompany a change to the direct election method. I think that direct election will provide a great impetus to registration and voting. Those persons in our country who have been virtually disenfranchised in national elections by virtue of being adherents of a minority party position in a particular State will be encouraged to vote because they will not see their action as futile as they must have in the past. Greater participation in presidential elections is, we urge, a positive value for democracy.

There will be a strengthening of confidence in the democratic nature of our institutions. No longer will we have to live with the nagging fear each election day that perhaps this time the loser will have more popular votes than the winner, or that no one will have enough electoral

votes.

Finally, I suggest that the simplicity of direct election is a virtue in and of itself. The basic principles of democracy have always been simple. But the electoral college system is not simple. I would be loath to guess how many persons in this country fully understand its workings. Surely everyone should understand how the President and Vice President of the United States are elected. Everyone should understand that the candidate receiving the most votes every citizen casting an equal vote-will be elected the President of all the people.

At one time in our history the electoral college may have served a useful purpose. Today it is nothing more than an unhappy anachronism and a device with a tremendous potential for mischief.

May I add one more word, Mr. Chairman, before I leave, and trespass on your time for one more moment?

As I sat here talking to you and reading from my prepared statement, I was struck by the improvement that a one-vote Senate and House election has over the present system of the election in the House of Representatives. While I would urge the Senator to continue to fight for a direct election runoff in this situation, I would be less than candid if I did not say that certainly, the compromise suggested would be