ner-take-all system, successfully disenfranchises millions of U.S. citizens and denies them the right to have their votes weighed and counted in the choice of President and Vice President. This system is the complete antithesis of the one-man, one-vote principle.

Mr. Chairman, the existing system generally known as the electoral college method of electing the President and Vice President was established by article II of the Constitution. The electoral college, itself, was left unchanged by the 12th amendment and is still unchanged except by the addition of electors representing the District of Columbia, added by the 23d amendment.

It is interesting to note that the same reasons that existed at the time of the adoption of the Constitution in 1788, and at the time of the adoption of the 12th amendment in 1804, for the fixing of the number of electors of each State on the basis which included all of their representation in the U.S. Congress; that is, both Senators and Representatives, still exist in even greater degree and operate as strong arguments against the abandonment of the constitutional method of fixing the weight of each State in presidential election. These reasons were and are (1) the vast difference in population of the several States, and (2) the zealous retention in the States of many elements of sovereignty.

The census of 1790 which occurred shortly after the adoption of the Constitution and the beginning of our Federal Government in 1789, showed the population of Delaware at 59,096 and of Rhode Island at 68,825. These were the two smallest of the original States. The same census of 1790 showed the population of the two largest States as follows: Virginia, 880,200; and Pennsylvania, 602,365. Assuming that these statistics reflect accurately the relative population of the States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, it thus appears that Virginia then had more than 14 times the population of Delaware and approximately 13 times the population of Rhode Island. Pennsylvania had more than 10 times the population of Delaware. Practically the same disparity of population is reflected by the census of 1800. taken shortly prior to the adoption of the 12th amendment in 1804, which did not disturb the setup of the electoral college.

By the 1960 U.S. census, the population of the then largest State, New York, was 16,782,304; and the population of the second largest State, California, was 15,717,204. These largest States compared with the smallest States as follows: Alaska had 226,167; Nevada had 285,278. Thus New York had more than 70 times the population of Alaska. It is clear that the disparity in population between the largest and smallest State in 1960 was much greater than was the disparity be tween the largest and smallest State at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and also at the time of the adoption of the 12th amendment in 1804.

Furthermore, I cannot believe that either the Congress or the American people are any less conscious at this time than were the Founding Fathers of the necessity for preserving the full weight of the States as separate, sovereign units of government which have retained and preserved for themselves many elements of their sovereignty and which are entitled now, as they were in the early days of the Republic, to the retention of their two votes in the U.S. Senate and the counting of their two Senators with their Representatives to make

up the total number of their electors in the selection of the President and Vice President. To put the presidential election solely on the basis of popuation or of votes cast in all 50 States and the District of Columbia would be to downgrade very greatly all of the smaller States in the Union, including not only the two smallest States which I have named, Alaska and Nevada, but also each of the 32 States whose population is less than the average population of all 50 States, or about 3.6 million persons in 1960.

As just one instance of the terrific impact of popular election of the President and Vice President, and assuming that in all States the votes cast would be approximately in proportion to total population, I call attention to the fact that the District of Columbia (763,956) would by this method be given more weight in a presidential election than Alaska (226,167) and Delaware (446,292) combined, and greater weight than Wyoming (330,066) and Vermont (389,881) combined. The District of Columbia (763,956) would be given greater weight than any of the following 11 States: Alaska (226,167), Delaware (446,292), Hawaii (632,772), Idaho (667,191), Montana (674,767), Nevada (285,278), New Hampshire (606,921), North Dakota (632,446), South Dakota (680,514), Vermont (389,881), and Wyoming (330,066).

I was glad to support the 23d amendment by which the District of Columbia was given the same weight as our smallest State in the electoral college for the election of the President and Vice President, but I am not prepared to approve this additional adventure by which the District of Columbia-which does not have any of the duties or responsibilities of sovereign statehood—would be given greater weight than any of the 11 States which I have listed and much greater power in the election of Presidents than is conferred on it now by the 23d amendment. Sometimes in this day of constant pushing for increased centralized, Federal power, we are prone to forget that the States are still sovereign in so many fields and that by their laws they handle so many of the matters which are completely vital to all of their citizens. While the States have lost some of their jurisdiction due to Federal encroachment, the States still retain and administer most of the matters which vitally affect the lives of their average citizens such as the following, and this is only a partial list:

Taxing real and personal property; operating the public schools; keeping vital statistics, such as registration of births and deaths; appointment of guardians for minors and incompetents and handling their estates; ownership and conveyancing of property; providing for the distribution of the estates of deceased persons; providing for the licensing of teachers, doctors, dentists, engineers, lawyers, and other vital professional and business persons and institutions; creating and regulating corporations and trusts; providing for the marriage and divorce of their citizens; handling civil actions and criminal prosecutions; enforcing law and order; taking life as a penalty for certain heinous crimes; providing, through police, firemen, inspectors and sanitary workers, for their security and that of homes and business; providing for the poor house and for hospitals for the insane, the feebleminded and the ill; controlling the highways; regulating the rates of water, power, gas and local transportation and controlling fresh water supplies.

In short, the States handle most of the important aspects of life for both their citizens and transients. None of these activities are controlled

for itself by the District of Columbia-all by the National Congress. Yet, it is proposed both to give the same weight to the District of Columbia which is given to States according to population and it is also proposed to take away from the small States, 32 of them, the equal weight which they were given by the Founding Fathers, and have always had to represent their State and local interests, not just in the Senate of the United States, but also in the electoral college.

I do not believe that many of the advocates of the direct election of the President and Vice President have carefully thought the matter through. I do not believe they want to downgrade the States as would be done by the adoption of the proposed direct election amendment. Particularly in the Senate, I cannot believe that the advocates of the direct election of the President and Vice President realize that the proposed action is a direct encouragement to later action toward depriving the States of their equal representation in the Senate. We have already seen that the Supreme Court is willing to override ancient, constitutional safeguards when they conflict with its philosophy as to what they feel should be the law in this 20th century Republic. I am not willing to take this far-reaching step which so completely changes the underlying philosophy of our Republic of dual sovereignty as stated by the Founding Fathers and as practiced with relative suc cess and public approval through nearly 180 years of practical government of our ever-growing and ever-more-powerful Nation.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note, as shown on the attached table, the great shift in weight of the several States if the election of the President and Vice President were by popular vote. The large States would be given increased weight and power at the expense of the smaller States as follows.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is of the very greatest importance both with reference to the equities and with reference to the practicalities because I cannot see the small States ever ratifying such an amendment.

First. Under the popular election plan, based on 1960 census figures. and assuming that votes cast would be in proportion to the population. 32 States and the District of Columbia should have a smaller voice in the election of the President and Vice President than they have under the electoral college system; 5 States would retain equal voice, and 13 States would gain a stronger voice.

Mr. Chairman, incidentally, my own State would gain a stronger voice. That makes no difference with me. I think this program is designed to completely disregard the philosophy of government as it exists and as we have operated it and I am completely against it.

Second. Under the proposed popular election system, 9 States, having 51.5 percent of the population, could control the election. And my State happens to be one of those nine.

Third. Under the present electoral system, 11 States, having 50 percent of the total electoral vote, could control the election.

As may readily be seen from the table, the loss in State weight. under the popular election as opposed to the electoral system, is 83 percent in the case of Alaska; five States would lose over 50 percent of their weight; 10 States would lose over 25 percent of their weight: and 17 States would lose from 4.8 percent of their weight to 25 percent of their weight.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that those Senators from those 32 States who support the popular election plan must have given little thought

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