The system would remove the method of choosing Presidential electors from the control of the fifty state legislatures by imposing a uniform system to operate under state laws.

Because it preserves the elector, the proposed District Method would change no other provisions of the Constitution.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO DISTRICT METHOD WITH RETENTION

OF ELECTORAL COLLEGE

Election of "minority" Presidents would still be possible under the district plan, i.e., a President could be elected who received fewer popular votes than his nearest opponent.

It would unduly favor the rural sections of the country as against the metropolitan areas.

The state legislatures would gerrymander the elector districts despite the standards laid down in the Amendment. Judicial enforcement attempts may not be effective.

The influence of minority groups would intentionally be reduced through isolating them in individual districts and limiting their statewide force to only two electoral votes.

It would concentrate Presidential campaigns in marginal districts.

Splinter parties would concentrate all their efforts on a few elector districts in an effort to elect enough electors to swing the balance of power in a close national election and with a view to throwing the election of a President into the Congress, where greater opportunity for bargaining would be afforded.

It would cause members of a minority party in a one-party district to "waste their votes" as in one-party states under present system.

Rural and small-town areas have excessive political influence in the Congress, and urban voters would be deprived of an effective voice in the government under the District Method since they would lose their strong influence in the election

The National Chamber's Public Affairs Committee conducted a comprehensive study on Electoral College Reform and feels strongly, along with the Board of Directors, that the method now used to elect the President and Vice President should be changed through the adoption of an Amendment to the Constitution.

Subject to referendum approval of the proposed policy statement the National Chamber is prepared to support the adoption of an Amendment that would provide for the elimination of the electoral college and establish either the Nationwide Popular Vote or the District Method in the election of the President and Vice President of the United States.

Additional copies of this National Chamber referendum pamphlet will be made available on requestnot exceeding in number that of the Board of Directors and appropriate committee of the organization making the request. Orders should specify Electoral College Reform Referendum Pamphlet.

The National Chamber has on hand a limited quantity of a special report on Electoral College Reform published by the Senate Judiciary Committee following comprehensive hearings that were held in 1961. A single copy of this report will be mailed to any member organization on request. The title of the document is The Electoral College, U. S. Senate, Judiciary Committee Report, Oct. 10, 1961.

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
college

present system eliminate electoral

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-Tex.1939-51), former Senator Price Daniel (D-Tex1953-56), 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
PROPORTIONAL METHOD

-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-ELIMIthey are under the present system. NATE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

-The electoral vote would conform far, more closely to the actual popular vose than the present system.

- 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.

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)

It would broaden the base for the selection of This method has had some Congressional support Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates by in the past. In the First Session (1965) of the 89th decreasing the incentive to nominate a man Congress, President Johnson proposed this system and 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.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPORTIONAL METHOD It would still be possible for the electoral vote to elect a man who lost in the popular vote. - The proportionate division of the electoral vote would encourage the splintering of political par

ties.

Proportionate division of electoral votes would establish a dangerous precedent for the introduction of proportional representation in the Congress and the legislative bodies of the several

states.

Proportional distribution of the electoral vote would weaken the power of the major parties because it would be relatively easy for the minority parties to win electoral votes.

It would retain the advantage that the small states have in the allocation of two electoral votes to each state for the two U. S. Senators, regardless of the population of the states. Proportional division of the electoral vote as proposed would permit the election of a President receiving merely a plurality of the electoral vote. Present requirement calls for a majority of the electoral vote.

In a close election, with votes being challenged and recounted, the mathematics would be complicated, and the election might hang in doubt for weeks.

-Rather than adopt a complicated method that has almost the same effect as direct election, adoption of the simpler system of direct election would be more practicable.

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 elimina

the 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 foreclosed.

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.