posals submitted since 1949, I submit that the proposal that most nearly satisfies the criteria just set forth is what I would call the counterpart plan.

I define the counterpart plan as one that provides a representative body chosen at the same time, in the same place, and in the same way as that other representative body, the Congress of the United States, with this difference, however: that it is charged with no legislative function, none at all, but is charged with the single duty of choosing the Executive leadership for the Nation, under directives issued by the people who simultaneously have chosen their national legislators. The counterpart plan would, first, enable the American people to exercise their preference as to national leadership; second, preserve and maintain our Federal system of National and State Governments better than any other plan contemplated; third, require the minimum change necessary to achieve the maximum reform required; fourth, produce no undesirable side effects, so far as one can predict; fifth, preserve our system of checks and balances, which make possible energetic administration by leaders chosen from the same constituency as the Congress; sixth, preserve our two-party system of government undiminished in usefulness and vigor; seventh, provide the maximum safety in the choice of leadership in a time of trouble such as the American people and the world have never before seen.

Mr. Chairman, as I read the current proposals for amendment of the Constitution, I find that the one that most closely conforms to the criteria I have set forth is Senate Joint Resolution 12, although, in my judgment, certain provisions not incorporated in this resolution might well be incorporated and, in my judgment, still other features might be considered for the modernization of providing for the National Executive. Senate Joint Resolution 12 seems to me to be the wisest proposal before the Congress, and its adoption would not preclude further study and possible further provisions for meeting the current need. Hence, I would recommend the approval of Senate Joint Resolution 12.

In addition, however, I would suggest

Senator KEFAUVER. For further identification, that is the resolution filed by Senator Mundt of South Dakota.

Mr. ALY. And joined in, I think, by Senator McClellan.
Senator KEFAUVER. Yes, by a number of other cosponsors.

Mr. ALY. I would suggest that the resources of some extra-governmental organization, some academic or professional body, be employed to study the profoundly serious problems involved in our choosing of the national leadership Some of these problems I venture to suggest, are not even hinted at in the current proposals and they are not academic matters. In view of the present posture of our country in world affairs, they are of the greatest urgency.

This concludes my statement.

Senator KEFAUVER. Dr. Aly, I appreciate your coming to be with us today.

Would you give us more details of the proposal which you describe as the counterpart plan? Who would be elected and how would it work?

Mr. ALY. It is based on the assumption that we would elect the same number of persons to the electoral college as are elected under the present system. Each person would be voting for three electors in

congressional districts. As he votes for the Members of the Congress, he would also vote for three electors who would meet as the electors do now. I would say that the counterpart plan is what is called in current literature, the district plan, but I think the word "counterpart" is more descriptive.

Actually, two of these three electors for whom the voter would vote would be elected statewide-not be a district in the sense of a congressional district. I would say roughly what has been called the district plan in the literature on this subject, is what I would propose, but I do think the word "counterpart" is more descriptive, more

accurate.

Senator KEFAUVER. Yes. Well, I understand that.

Are you still the editor of the National University Extension Association's Discussion and Debate Manual?

Mr. ALY. Yes, sir, I am. In fact, I am engaged in editing the publication for next year at the present time.

Senator KEFAUVER. What is the debate subject for next year?

Mr. ALY. It should be a very interesting question to you, sir. It is "What should be the role of the Federal Government in education?" Senator KEFAUVER. That is quite timely.

Mr. ALY. It is indeed, yes, sir.

Senator KEFAUVER. How could we devote more debate at the present time to the problem of franchise and improving the electoral system? How can we do that?

Mr. ALY. Well, as you know, Senator, for two different years, in 1949 and 1953, these questions of selecting the national leadership or electoral reform were debated in the schools throughout the Nation I am personally hopeful that they will be debated again, not next year, of course, but perhaps the succeeding year or year after; but I am the servant of the schools and not their dictator, and so I can only suggest. I have discovered that oftentimes my suggestions are not followed. But I would welcome having the debates again on these subjects. It is one of the most fruitful subjects we have ever discussed, because it goes to the heart of our Federal and State system. Senator KEFAUVER. I would hope that your suggestion for 1963 might be taken, because if any constitutional amendment is submitted to the people, debate on this subject will be very timely and helpful. May I ask you another question, Dr. Aly? You had a lot of experience with young men and women in high schools and colleges in connection with these debates on national issues from year to year. Would you care to express your opinion about their competence or qualifications to vote before they reach 21 years of age?

Mr. ALY. They have debated that question, by the way-the high school students some years ago debated the question, and I was interested to discover that many young people themselves, after a year's debate, were actually opposed to the idea. Many of them felt that it would be just as well to wait for the vote until they got into college. Most of the high school debaters are going into college, of course. Many of them felt, after studying the question, that they would do just as well to wait, although there was another group who were quite willing to take the responsibility.

You wanted my judgment. My own feeling is that the age is not the primary factor. There are some young people at age 18 who are well prepared to vote; and there are some who may never be as well

qualified as they ought to be to exercise the franchise. I would think the age factor is not as significant as some of my friends believe it to be.

Senator KEFAUVER. I do not know how we would ever give everybody an IQ test.

Mr. ALY. I would not favor that, no, but I am trying to say I do not think this is as important a question as some of my good friends seem to think it to be.

Senator KEFAUVER. Well, thank you, Dr. Aly. It is good to see you again.

Mr. ALY. Thank you, sir.

Senator KEFAUVER. We are pleased to have with us Dr. Paul J. Piccard, associate professor, Department of Government, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Fla.

Dr. Piccard has been mentioned here as a scholar and a writer in the field which we are discussing. We know he will be knowledgeable and thoughtful on the subject. We are glad to have you with us, Dr. Piccard.

STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL J. PICCARD, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT, FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

Mr. PICCARD. Thank you, Senator. I prepared a longer statement than I am sure the subcommittee is going to want to hear. This is an outline of my statement.

Senator KEFAUVER. Your full statement will be printed in the record and if you wish, you can discuss the points from your outline.

Mr. PICCARD. Thank you, sir.

I would like to make just three or four points one that I had not planned to make until I heard some of the testimony.

Senator KEFAUVER. Tell us a little more about your background, Dr. Piccard.

Mr. PICCARD. Yes, sir.

First of all, I come by this reputation which you have identified me with in terms of the electoral college, because this was the subject of my doctoral thesis at the University of Texas in 1952. I have tried to follow the electoral college system since that time.

I am a member of the American Political Science Association and other professional organizations in my field.

I should say, as other witnesses have, that I am speaking as an individual and not as an official representative of my university or of any of these associations. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to combine my role as a citizen with my knowledge as a political scientist.

I had not planned to say, but I want to take just a moment on the question of the history and origin of the electoral college, in view of some of the testimony that has been presented to the subcommittee. If you all are familiar with Lucius Wilmerding's book, "The Electoral College," he has in there what I regard as a very sound explanation of the origin. I regard it as sound because I arrived at the same point through entirely independent research and this kind of replication, I think, strengthens the argument.

Both Wilmerding and I argue that the electoral college was designed not to move away from popular control of the election, but rather to

move as close to it as possible. They could not, with some slaveholding States and with all the other variations in suffrage qualifications, go to a direct popular election. The members of the convention who favored direct popular election came up with the electoral college as the nearest substitute they could. I think that might well be given more attention than it has been given.

Now, most of my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, is on points with which I know you are very familiar, because I have learned a good deal of what I know about the system by pursuing some of your own work in the field.

Senator KEFAUVER. I hope you have not been too misled by doing so. Mr. PICCARD. I do not feel that way.

Unless you would like to raise some questions with respect to parts of this outline, let me turn to what I have for part 4, three points there that I think most of your hearings have not developed.

One is the electoral count, another is the resolution of deadlocks, and third, a new problem created by the adoption of the 23d amendment. Senator KEFAUVER. Very well.

Mr. PICCARD. First, on the electoral count, the Constitution has this. very awkward passive phrase in it which says, "And the votes shall then be counted" without saying who shall count them.

Many of the otherwise excellent proposals brought before this subcommittee continue this language; some of them avoid it. The ones that continue the langauge, though, invite the same kind of trouble, it seems to me, which we faced in the contested election of 1876 between Hayes and Tilden.

At the present time, the resolution of a contest depends upon an act of Congress and I regard this as an insubstantial basis, with as much at stake as presidential elections.

This law could be changed by the lame duck administration and the old Congress, meeting in December. The new Congress would not be able to change such a law prior to the date of the inauguration unless they had the power to override a veto.

Now, the whole story of that contest has been largely forgotten, perhaps because it is now so old and because it was finally resolved without difficulty. But it was a very close call and I would remind this subcommittee that at the time, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted a resolution declaring Tilden the elected President.

Senator KEFAUVER. Let me make that first point clear. You mean the Congress that meets to count the votes-when is it, January 5?— Mr. PICCARD. Yes, sir.

Senator KEFAUVER (continuing). Is the new Congress?

Mr. PICCARD. At this point, it is the new Congress, but the old President. Any law which had been adopted on the electoral count could be changed only with the consent of the President or with the strength to override his veto.

Senator KEFAUVER. Then if the old Congress prior to the swearing in of the new Congress had passed some other method of counting, there would not be time for the new Congress to pass another law and even if it did, it might be vetoed by the old President.

Mr. PICCARD. Yes, sir; it would be a real mess.

In 1877 they had almost 3 months to solve it. They had until March 4, but today or in the future, that kind of time is not available.

Well, that is, if you will, a hypothetical danger, but in a close and contested election, I think this could well be a breaking point in the system. I think we are very fortunate in that the personality of the defeated presidential candidate last year was such that he was not in a mood to test it, because our technique for resolving a contested election is ambiguous.

I would argue the advantage of a constitutional safeguard for the counting process. If the Constitution does not say exactly how the votes should be counted, by whom, and how contests should be resolved, at least the Constitution, in authorizing the Congress to spell this out, could require that the law spelling it out not be changed between the popular vote in November and the resolution of the count in January, so that the law could not be tailored to the partisan needs of the time. Senator KEFAUVER. The law that you are talking about which might be changed by the old Congress, that is, title III, section 15 of the United States Code, counting electoral votes in the Congress. Is that correct?

Mr. PICCARD. Yes, sir.

SenatorKEFAUVER. You would at least recommend that there be a constitutional provision that the law could not be changed between the election and the counting of the votes?

Mr. PICCARD. Yes, sir, I would hate to see that law changed in midstream. The law is a quite comprehensive one now, and allows, incidentally, a great emphasis on the integrity of the States. For the Congress to throw out a State vote, both Houses have to agree before they can throw it out. The debates on this are very old and it has gone different ways at different times in our history. Our history does not provide clear precedents for people who want to solve it by precedents. The precedent of 1876-77 is not going to be adequate to the future. At least, it will not be adequate unless one of the parties sees that it can get that 8 to 7 majority in the decision.

Senator KEFAUVER. We all know that in the Hayes-Tilden contest, Congress solved it by establishing a presidential commission of 15. But tell us, just for the record, a little more about it, so that anyone reading this record will have better information.

Mr. PICCARD. Yes, sir.

The House at that time was controlled by the Democrats, the Senate by the Republicans. The President was the retiring Republican President, General Grant.

Senator KEFAUVER. What efforts did they make before they established the commisison to resolve the conflict?

Mr. PICCARD. I am not sure, sir, exactly how far they went trying to resolve it through agreement between the Houses, but this became apparently impossible and they turned to the commission when they saw it was impossible to solve it by themselves.

At this point, the House and the Senate leave the counting of the votes, the joint session is broken up.

Senator KEFAUVER. Each House goes and meets separately to count the votes?

Mr. PICCARD. Yes, sir, and at that time, they certainly were not about to reach an agreement on that basis. Of course, the Senate could not afford to settle it in a joint session, where the Republican majority would have been wiped out by the large number of Representatives.