LIST OF PARTICIPATING POLITICAL SCIENTISTS-Continued [An asterisk (*) indicates that the person submitted a statement along with his completed questionnaire. These statements are printed in alphabetical order following the list of participants in the poll] Name Kirwin, Harry W. Matterson, Clarence H.. McKelvey, Raymond G. Mesmer, Gerald, O.S.B. Morris, Wentworth S. Muntz, Ernest G. Nelson, W. H. Noblitt, Harding C. Ogden, Daniel M., Jr. Pailert, G. Charles. *Parry, Stanley (Rev.), C.S.C. Payne, Thomas Peterson, Harold T. Pfretzschner, Paul A. Pinkerton, Herman. Pollock, James K. Poole, Bernard L.. *Prufer, Julius F. Riggs, R. G.. Rockwell, Landon G. Roberty, James M. *Rosenbaum, H. D. Roske, Ralph J. Ross, Thomas R. Russell, Lots L Saylor, J. R.. Scott, David C. Schuhle, William. Sacramento State College. University of Denver- Nebraska State Teachers College. David Lipscomb College.. Atlantic Christian College. Declaration of Atlantic Unity. A. & M. College of Texas. Washington State University. University of Notre Dame. Tennessee Polytechnic Institute.. University of Oklahoma.. University of Chattanooga. Roanoke College. Humboldt State College. Davis & Elkins College... East Texas State College.. Southwest Missouri State College.. Manchester College. Denver, Colo. Bemidji, Minn. Nashville, Tenn. Frederick, Md. Newark, Del. Cedar Falls, Iowa. Houston, Tex. Waltham, Mass. Clinton, N.Y. Milwaukee, Wis. Hempstead, N.Y. Arcata, Calif. Elkins, W. Va. Knoxville, Tenn. Commerce, Tex. Springfield, Mo. North Manchester, Ind. LIST OF PARTICIPATING POLITICAL SCIENTISTS-Continued [An asterisk (*) indicates that the person submitted a statement along with his completed questionnaire. These statements are printed in alphabetical order following the list of participants in the poll] Name *Selman, Jackson W. Taylor, Richard W. Hope College. Emmanuel Missionary College. Pacific University. Northwestern State College. Arkansas Polytechnic College.. Bryn Mawr College. New School for Social Research. Texas Woman's University. Location Jacksonville, Ala. Akron, Ohio. New York, N.Y. Salt Lake City, Utah. STATEMENT IN AMPLIFICATION OF ANSWERS TO QUESTIONNAIRE TO QUESTION 8. ELECTORAL COLLEGE PLAN OTHER THAN ONE SUGGESTED I would favor a combination of plans, as follows: 1. Retain the electoral college but not the electors as such. 2. Retain the principle of the influence of the States upon the choice of the President by assigning 2 electoral votes to each of the 50 States. The candidate receiving the most popular votes in any State would receive the two electoral votes. 3. Divide the remaining electoral votes in proportion to the popular votes cast for the candidates in the general election. For simplification in determining the fractional votes the fractions of votes should not be calculated beyond tenths. Example: In 1960 President Kennedy carried South Carolina by a vote of 198,000 to 188,000. On the suggested division he would receive 3.2 electoral votes to 2.8 for Mr. Nixon. He would also receive the two electoral votes assigned to the winning candidate and thus would have 5.2 electoral votes to 2.8 votes for Nixon. 4. An alternate plan would eliminate the principle of State influence by dividing the entire electoral vote of a State in proportion to the total votes cast in the general election. This plan would, in the case of South Carolina, yield the following result for 1960: President Kennedy, 4.1 votes to 3.9 votes for Mr. Nixon. 5. I would like to oppose by any possible means two suggested plans: (a) Election of the President by popular vote with no regard to the States or the principle of State influence. (b) Election of the President by so-called election districts especially set up for this purpose. I believe this is a scheme of political reactionaries to subvert the wishes of the American people. Unable to control either major political party or to win the last presidential contest this group is now coming forward with a "reform" which under certain conditions would give them a chance to influence the outcome of future contests in certain States. Sincerely yours, FRANK ASHLEY, Chairman, Department of History and Political Science. THE COLLEGE OF WOOSTER, DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, WOOSTER, Ohio, June 16, 1961. Senator ESTES KEFAUVER, Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR KEFAUVER: I am returning the questionnaire which you sent on June 7. I have answered as best I can-and yet I feel that some options are not given which should be given. As Congress is presently constituted, I am opposed to the alteration of the present method of election of the President with the possible exception of the abolition of the office of elector. By this I mean that the Senate, with equal representation for each State, and the House, with representation from districts which have been established by State legislatures which are controlled largely by rural interests, makes the less populated States and the rural interests disproportionally represented in Congress. The only real refuge which the majority of the population which resides in the city has is in the electoral college system which allows the large urban centers to have their rightful say in the selection of the President. I believe that this system affords a sort of countervailing power between the rural and urban groups and, unless some system which would do essentially the same thing can be found, should be retained. I hope that this is of some help. JOHN W. BAKER, Chairman. THE CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, Omaha, Nebr. The opinion which I have expressed represents what I consider to be the "ideal" constitutional amendment.1 I realize, however, that it is highly unlikely that such a proposal could be adopted. As a "practical" compromise, therefore, I would favor any modification which would reduce the artificial electoral power of the smaller States and bring the selection of the President more in line with the actual voting populations of the several States. Senator ESTES KEFAUVER, RENE K. BEAUCHESNE. WASHINGTON COLLEGE, Chestertown, Md., June 20, 1961. Chairman, Committee on Constitutional Amendments, DEAR SENATOR KEFAUVER: I am most grateful to you for having solicited my opinion regarding the electoral college system. In addition to having completed the attached questionnaire, I would like to make more extended observations on the subject. It has long seemed to me that much of the debate over the electoral college is carried on in a vacuum. It is as though the issue should be resolved on the basis of abstract considerations (such as the unfairness of the arrangement which gives a State's entire electoral vote to a presidential candidate who may have mustered only a slim popular majority). I criticize this sterile approach because it fails to take into account the political consequences that would ensue from abolition of the electoral college system. In my view, the most significant political effect of the present system is the commanding position it gives to the heavily populated States. The large number of electors to which each of these States is entitled tends to make presidential candidates reasonably sympathetic to the political positions they favor. Permit me to explain why I think this is desirable. There are many elements in our political system that confer significant advantages on the rural, conservative portion of our population. The existence of gerrymandering is one. Others include the enormous power of the House Rules Committee, the threat and the use of the filibuster in the Senate, and the widely recognized functioning of a conservative coalition in Congress. On the other hand, urban progressivism-supported largely by labor and racial and religious minority groups-has only the political effect of the electoral college system to balance the absurd power of conservatism. Must even this pitiful crumb be surrendered? If the existence of the "bloc voting" feature of the electoral college system cannot be justified according to abstract logical principles, neither can the above-mentioned factors that benefit the right. If liberals are to give up the electoral college, they would be well advised to do so only as part of a package 1 Professor Beauchesne answered "Yes" to question 4 concerning election of the President by national direct popular vote. |