Mr. DAVID. The Florida law has been tested in the elections of 1956 and 1960. In 1956, it produced the noteworthy campaign in the State between Senator Kefauver and Governor Stevenson, both of whom were represented on the ballot by slates favoring their candidacy. In the same year, a slate of would-be Republican delegates favoring Senator Knowland was defeated by one favoring President Eisenhower. This, I believe, was the first time a Republican primary was held in Florida in quite a long time.

In 1960, a favorite son slate supporting Senator Smathers had no contest, although it was indicated that Senator Kennedy was ready and willing to enter the State if Senator Johnson did so. So I think the form of the law had some effect.

The Florida law is not universally popular with the party organizations in the State, and an amending bill was passed in 1959. It was so bad a bill that Governor Collins vetoed it, and the veto stood. His veto message can be found in my book, "The Politics of National Party Conventions," page 537.

I would make no prediction concerning the future of the Florida law in Florida, but do assert that it is in accord with a number of fundamental objectives that seem to me to be important.

1. It preserves and improves the representative character of the national party conventions as the institution for making the nominating choice.

2. It provides amply for citizen participation whenever opposing candidates wish to enter the State, or whenever sentiment in a State is strong enough to generate groups of supporters who will organize and campaign for a candidate on their own initiative.

3. It puts no undue burdens on the candidates, the party organizations, the State government, or the voters.

4. It avoids cluttering the ballot, as in Oregon, with candidates who have no support in the State and no interest in campaigning in it; when it does give the voter a choice, the choice is a valid one to which the voter can profitably address himself.

Opportunities somewhat similar to those of the Florida system have been provided over the years in New Hampshire, and were provided in Wisconsin until 1948. The experience in those States supports this view of the Florida system. On the other hand, in States where delegates cannot indicate on the ballot whom they will support unless they have the candidate's consent, the selection of candidates on the ballot has usually been quite unsatisfactory. The primaries in those States have often produced delegate commitments that were entirely contrary to voter sentiment.

In my view, the national party conventions perform an indispensable function in a country as large and diversified as this one. The choice of a new leader for a national political party is one that should involve the informed choice of the delegates and of the party voters wherever possible; but the limits of the possible should be recognized. If the delegates and the voters are to be informed, the candidates must perform under conditions that will provide the necessary information. A series of separate primary elections at different dates in the different States is a useful way of testing the candidates one that should not be hastily given up.

In our recent book, we reached the conclusion that the new style of campaigning which has occurred since 1944 is largely the result of the

personal contribution that you and Governor Stassen made, which I believe, changed the pattern of politics in this area. Largely because of what the two of you did, the type of campaign that President Kennedy made became possible.

Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you for the reference. I think it did contribute to it. I think it has changed it for good.

Mr. DAVID. After the party voters have become informed, they may still find themselves not overwhelmingly impressed by any single candidate among several who remain prominent. At such a time, a representative institution such as the convention can do much to find the solution that is most acceptable to all concerned. There is nothing in either elections theory or the history of elections to suggest that a mechanical form of national primary, frequently involving a runoff, will provide as good a choice as the nomination coming out of a national party convention, after an appropriate type of preconvention campaign.

That is the end of my statement, or that part of it.

Senator KEFAUVER. Dr. David, I am going to ask you questions about this, but if it is all the same, we will do it this afternoon. Mr. DAVID. I will be happy to return after lunch.

Senator KEFAUVER. We will stand in recess until 2:30 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m. the hearing recessed to reconvene at 2:30 p.m.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL T. DAVID, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, CHARLOTTESVILLEResumed

Senator KEFAUVER. Dr. David, I think you suggested that any recommendation that Congress determine whether or not it wants to put into effect a nationwide primary should be accompanied by a draft of what the sponsor has in mind.

I think that on one previous occasion I filed a bill which set forth my ideas, but I did not do it on this occasion. However, I have stated the general outlines which I think primary legislation should follow.

You, in general, think that the primary system would be better than the present convention method of selecting presidential candidates?

Mr. DAVID. Well, I like the convention as an institution because I think this thing gets sufficiently complicated now and then so that we need some place to work it out. In other words, I do not like the runoff primary at all. If you come out of the primary originally with three or four candidates and none of them has a majority, then I think the convention ought to be the place to settle it."

Senator KEFAUVER. I think you would gather from what I said this morning that I agree with you?

Mr. DAVID. Yes.

Senator KEFAUVER. Well, you are a good judge of public opinion. What do you think the chances are of a resolution such as Senator Mansfield's? Is the public ready for it?

Mr. DAVID. I think the public would be ready. I think the difficulty is in other parts of the political system, but particularly there

is difficulty in reaching an agreement on what is sound and why it is planned. This has been evident here from the conversation and on other previous occasions.

Senator KEFAUVER. That could be deferred until the authorizing amendment had been adopted, could it not? I mean the detail could be deferred.

Mr. DAVID. Well, it could be, I suppose, but I would think, myself, it would be easier to gather sentiment for an amendment if what was going to be done under the amendment was at least indicated.

Senator KEFAUVER. All right, sir. Let us go on to electoral college reform on page 6 of your prepared statement.

Mr. DAVID. All right, sir.

The various proposals on electoral college reform that are pending before the subcommittee include most of the plans that have been debated in recent years. Several of the proposals include changes in detail that take account of criticism, and that undoubtedly improve them.

Each of the proposals is supported by major reasons in its favor, and each is still subject to major objections. So far as my own thinking is concerned at this time, however, I find myself most impressed by Senator Mansfield's Senate Joint Resolution 23, providing for direct election of President and Vice President by popular vote. I agree generally with his comments in the Senate on January 9, 1961, when he expressed his hope that we have reached

that point in our continuing constitutional evolution in which Americans should express their unity as a people, beyond State divisions, by selecting by equal vote throughout the land the President of the United States; and second ** that point of political enlightenment and maturity at which Americans are competent to fill the Presidential office by direct vote, without the faceless intermediaries of the electoral college.

Most discussion of direct election proposals has ended prematurely, it seems to me, because of the widespread belief that such a proposal could never be ratified. It seems to me that this assumption should be reconsidered, and especially if the proposal itself is submitted for a direct vote of the people, as it would be under the plan to secure ratification by the use of ratifying conventions in the States. The experience in adopting the amendment repealing prohibition in 1933 indicates that in most States, the delegates to the ratifying conventions would be elected at large on a basis permitting a statewide yes-no vote on the amendment in each State.

This system of electing the delegates to ratifying conventions. could easily be made mandatory by Congress, as I think it should be. Senator Clark introduced a bill to that effect in the last Congress86th Congress, S. 3781-and is, I believe, preparing to reintroduce it in a few days in conjunction with his proposal for a constitutional amendment on equitable representation in State legislatures.

It has also been said that if a direct election amendment were adopted, it would bring irresistible pressure for national laws governing qualifications for voting. I am not sure that this is a valid reason for being opposed to the direct election principle, but in any event it seems to me to be based on a false assessment of the situation we are in.

The fact is that the existing system for electing the President probably puts more pressure on the election machinery in the States

than any other system that could be devised. In each of the swing States, the counting or rejection of a few hundred or a few thousand votes may be enough to shift the entire electoral vote of the State, with potential consequences that were dramatically apparent last November.

Moreover, under present circumstances, almost any State may get into the position of being a swing State for this purpose, with consequent pressures to make certain that its election is conducted honestly and efficiently. If there is a need for national action on how elections are conducted in the States, it is probably at least as great already as it would be if the proposal for direct election were to be adopted.

The prospects for the direct election proposal would improve considerably if the people who oppose all of the other proposals were to unite in support of direct election. They have a point, however, when they assert that there are other problems considerably more urgent than the reform of the electoral college.

In the general field of elections reform, I would argue that first priority should be given to the problem of representation in the State legislatures, second to the districting problem for the House of Representatives, and third to the development and enforcement of a uniform suffrage requirement throughout the Nation. In each of these cases, the inequities of the present situation seems to me to be excessively severe and long overdue for some form of corrective action. When and if the sore spots in these areas have been relieved, an entirely new setting would be provided for the consideration of electoral college reform; and the merits of all of the proposals pending before this subcommittee would be considerably increased.

Senator KEFAUVER. Well, sir, you correctly state the opposition that has been most frequently voiced here to the general election of the President.

In taking some recent presidential election, I believe in the one in 1956, 32 States would have lost influence by losing their two Senate electors if the general system had been in effect. Therefore, it is assumed that they would not approve the proposed amendment.

Do you think that might be different if they had to vote on representatives for a convention in each State, to pass on ratifying the constitutional amendment?

Mr. DAVID. Yes, my thought is that if the ratification process put this directly before the people, there would be very few States in which it would be voted down. In terms of what you say about the 32 States, this, I am sure, is correct in the technical sense, that they do have that power in the electoral college.

But the way the present system works, it tends to emphasize the big States and I am not sure the little States would be giving up so much. I would not think people in the small States would be terribly anxious to preserve this alleged advantage if they could have a direct vote for President as the alternative.

Senator KEFAUVER. You say that you think first priority should be given to the problem of representation in the State legislatures. Do you not think the Supreme Court will have an opportunity to take care of that after the case is reargued?

Mr. DAVID. I very much hope that it will. In that event, the need for Senator Clark's proposed amendment may disappear, but there would still be room for his companion bill setting the standards for

State legislative districting. The process of litigation is a poor way to develop standards and would require a long period of years. Legislation that would lay down some standards would expedite the process and thus be desirable.

Senator KEFAUVER. Mr. Kirby, do you have some questions on this part of the statement?

Mr. KIRBY. No, sir, I do not.

Senator KEFAUVER. All right, sir, let us go to part 3.

Mr. DAVID. Part 3 is on time of election, convening of Congress and inauguration.

Senator Mansfield has proposed in Senate Joint Resolution 23 that the time of Inauguration Day be shifted from January 20 back to December 1, leaving the election on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, unless the time is changed by Congress. In bills pending elsewhere, Senators Mansfield and Keating have proposed that the time of the national party conventions be changed to September. Former President Eisenhower has also suggested that there should be changes in the time of inauguration, in order to end the present anomalous situation in which the outgoing President is required by law to prepare messages on the state of the Union, Economic Report, and budget.

As I have studied the scheduling aspect of these various matters, it has seemed to me that the time of the election and of the convening of Congress should also be changed as a part of a general plan. The schedule I would favor is as follows:

Election of President, Vice President, and Congress, first Tuesday in October.

Convening of the new Congress, first Monday in November.

Inauguration of President and Vice President, first Friday after the first Monday in November.

Under this schedule, the national party conventions could continue to be held in July, leaving August available to organize the campaigns and September in which to conduct them. Presidential messages on the state of the Union, Economic Report, and budget would continue to be sent to Congress in January, and the fiscal year would continue to begin on July 1 and end on June 30. Congress would meet annually in November.

The proposed new schedule would require a constitutional amendment to change the existing provisions for the convening of Congress and inauguration. So far as election day is concerned, it was standardized for the election of presidential electors by an act of Congress passed in 1845 and still in effect.

Congress still has authority to change election day, so far as Federal elections are concerned, but unfortunately a number of State constitutions, written since 1845 have frozen the day for general State elections. This creates a problem, but it is one that could be taken care of rather simply by including a few words of authority for the State legislatures in any Federal amendment on the subject, as I have done in section 5 of a draft of a suggested amendment attached at the end of this statement.

The proposed schedule would have the following advantages:

1. The new Congress would convene in time to count the electoral votes for President and take such action as may be necessary. It would then have about 2 months in which to complete its organiza