In the congressional district that I formerly represented, I could pick out two or three men on both the Republican and Democratic tickets that would be likely to be named as a candidate for elector, who would get a reaction similar to the one I have expressed. Somebody would say, well, I am a Kennedy man, but I certainly will vote for him. And he might be a Nixon elector, and vice versa. What do you say about that danger? Do you think it is a serious one? Mr. MILLER. I don't think it is a serious one, Senator. It is a consideration, of course. There are always considerations in all of these important decisions. But it has not been my experience that it happened where we have had two slates of delegates, for instance, to our national convention running against each other as, for instance, in 1952 the Taft delegates and the Eisenhower delegates, and I am sure that this has been the experience of the Democratic Party from time to time. By and large, I think the electorate is intelligent and is aware of the issues and the questions and the problem that is posed. I think that a person today running in a congressional district, say, as an elector in order to be elected would have to be a pledged elector for the presidential candidate, supported by the majority of the people within that congressional district regardless of his identity or his own personal popularity or stature within the congressional district. Senator KEATING. He would, but he would be going around to the county fair and the picnics and all, and he would be making speeches, and his name would appear on the ballot, and some of the less well informed electorate at least would say, "Well, there is a great fellow. He helped my mother one time out of a very difficult situation. I really have got to vote for him." That seems to me to present a real difficulty, and, to my way of thinking, one of the most serious of the difficulties. Mr. MILLER. I don't think this would happen. I don't think that the electorate would be as confused as this. I don't believe that if they were, for instance, ardent supporters of President Kennedy, I don't think they would be prone to vote for the elector for Dick Nixon, no matter what the identity. In addition to that, of course, it would then be indicated, I think, that each political party ought to attempt to select as its electors the very finest people within the respective congressional districts and raise the stature perhaps of electors and increase interest generally in the way we elect Presidents and do it through our finer citizens, and I can't see anything objectionable. Senator KEATING. I think that would happen. They would try to select the most popular names, and they certainly would be ill advised if they didn't. Mr. MILLER. May I just comment on that? Senator KEATING. Yes. Mr. MILLER. I am not at all sold on the fact that the American people aren't, by and large, entirely aware of these situations. It has never been my experience, for instance, that you are very successful in electing men to Congress or the Senate just because they happen to be popular heroes, whether on a football field or the prizefight ring or wherever it may be. Many people in America will have great respect for certain people because of their prowess in certain fields of endeavor, but nevertheless they do not and have not historically selected them for high elective office unless indeed those people have qualifications, too, for high elective office. Senator KEATING. At least not reelect him. They sometimes elect him for one term. Senator KEFAUVER. On this point we have been discussing, Mr. Miller, I notice in your statement you say that you don't think the use of electors is the root of the problem. But do you think it is really necessary to keep the electors? Why isn't it safer and better to alleviate the problem as Senator Keating said, by just allocating the presidential votes of the State? Mr. MILLER. You mean on a proportional basis? Senator KEFAUVER. No. Under the present system, if New York goes Democratic, the secretary of state would certify the result to the Senate, and then, of course, New York is entitled to so many votes and the votes of New York would be counted that way. Mr. MILLER. Because of the fact that I feel that this is weighted against rural versus urban areas. Senator KEFAUVER. I don't mean to change the number of votes. I am not talking about the district plan or the proportional plan. I am just talking about eliminating the electors. Mr. MILLER. As such, except that you would certify-for instance, in New York we have 45 electoral votes presently. Nevertheless Senator KEFAUVER. Certify that New York is entitled to 45 presidential and vice-presidential votes. Mr. MILLER. But you are saying just abolish the electoral college. But the results would be exactly the same as they are today. In other words, if the Republican or Democratic candidate-it doesn't make any difference-carried the whole State of New York by 10 votes, the 45 votes would be certified for the one winning the State by 10 votes. Senator KEFAUVER. That is what I am talking about. Mr. MILLER. I say that is why I feel that system is weighted against rural voters as opposed to urban and so forth. Senator KEFAUVER. But even if you adopt the Mundt-Coudert plan, Senate Joint Resolution 12, it isn't necessary to have electors Mr. MILLER. No. In other words, if you wanted to base the return as certified that, let us say, 21 congressional districts cast their votes for Dick Nixon, and 22 for Senator Kennedy, and the State went at large for Senator Kennedy, giving him the 2 senatorial votes that you would have of the 45, 24 votes certified, never mind the electoral college that you are talking about, but we just certify from the State of New York for Senator Kennedy that he gets 24 votes, or however many it may be, and Dick Nixon 21. I wouldn't argue too much about that. The principle is roughly the same. Senator KEATING. I think that is a distinct improvement. Mr. MILLER. This would eliminate your objection as to having a person running as an elector in the electoral district. Senator KEATING. It would, and that was the suggestion made in one of our committees. And I think if we thought seriously of reporting the Mundt-Coudert proposal, that would be an improvement on it. One other question on that. The delineation of these electoral districts gives me a little difficulty. Did you envision that they would be the same as congressional districts? Mr. MILLER. That they would be identical. In other words, my congressional district in New York is the 40th. And there would be also an elector running in the 40th Congressional District. Senator KEATING. Well, there is nothing in the Mundt proposal that says that. Mr. MILLER. That would be my understanding of how the States Senator KEATING. In other words, you would expect the States would do that. Mr. MILLER. Yes. Senator KEATING. The States would not be under any obligation to do it, and I would think it might hardly be expected that they would do it as a practical political matter. But, anyway, you think that that is the way it should be done? Mr. MILLER. Yes. Senator KEFAUVER. Well, did you mean that you would just let the congressionals districts stand as they are now with their disproportionate population? Mr. MILLER. No. As it states, reapportionment-I mean there would be no change in this, every 10 years following the census as the congressional districts were settled and set by boundaries; that you would then have an elector running in each congressional district in the State, and the two electors running statewide as do the two U.S. Sen ators. Senator KEATING. But do you favor imposing upon the States the obligation with regard to cutting up their congressional districts, which is contained in the Mundt resolution with regard to setting up electoral districts? Mr. MILLER. Yes, I would want them identical. I think this would be the fair approach in other words. Senator KEATING. It is going to change a lot of congressional districts in this country on both sides if such a proposal as contained in the Mundt resolution Mr. MILLER. Why do you say that, Senator? Senator KEATING. Because there are Mr. MILLER. Because legislatures and Governors would be prone to gerrymander the electoral districts different from the congressional? Senator KEATING. We all know they gerrymander the congressional districts on both sides. Mr. MILLER. Right. Senator KEATING. The Mundt resolution says you can't gerrymander electoral districts. So, if you make them identical with congressional districts, then you impliedly say you can't gerrymander congressional districts. Mr. MILLER. No; that was not my understanding of the Mundt resolution, that the electors, the districts would correspond to the congressional districts. Senator KEATING. Well, the Mundt Senator KEFAUVER. It has been changed in this Congress, Mr. Miller. He has a new provision. Senator KEATING. It says the electors shall be elected- Mr. MILLER. What page are you reading from? * such districts to be composed of compact and contiguous territory containing as nearly as practicable the number of persons which entitled the State to one Representative in the Congress. Mr. MILLER (reading): and such districts when formed shall not be altered until another census has been taken. Of course, that is the same this language here, "such districts to be composed of compact and contiguous territory, containing as nearly as practicable" and so forth, is the language we have had before, as you well know, in the Judiciary Committee of the House in connection with congressional districts also. Senator KEATING. Is that the same language in the Constitution providing congressional districts? Mr. MILLER. No; because that is the language-I don't know whether you were a cosponsor of it or not, but for several years now we have had pending before our House committee-I don't know about the Senate Senator KEATING. NO. I was not. And I would not favor imposing upon the State by this resolution the requirement that it must change its congressional districts, to correspond to the electoral districts under the Mundt resolution." Mr. MILLER. I am not opposed to that. Mr. MILLER. I am not opposed to that. Senator KEATING. I assumed you are not opposed with regard to electoral districts. Mr. MILLER. This whole thing, of course, is designed to eliminate as much as possible the gerrymandering which goes on, and I certainly have never been in favor of that. Senator KEFAUVER. Congressman Miller, do you think the proportional plan would result in splinter parties? Mr. MILLER. Yes; I do. Senator KEFAUVER. And cause chaos and so forth? Mr. MILLER. Yes; I do. Senator KEFAUVER. Have you read the resolution that has been presented by Senator Case of South Dakota? He adopts a proportional plan but says that no candidate's votes shall be counted in a particular State unless he gets as much as one-third of the vote. Mr. MILLER. Yes; I have that here, but I don't feel that I could support this. I think that proportional representation could leadproportional voting could lead to splinter parties and possible minority parties. This is what happened in Germany. As you well know, prior to 1933, after they had constitutional government given to them under the Constitution in 1924, in practically 9 years the Nazi Party took over in Germany although they never received-no Nazi candidate ever received more than 29 or 30 percent of the total vote cast in any general election in Germany for the Reichstag. But the point was that they had so many political parties in Germany for the Protestants and Catholics and labor and manufacturers and people who lived in the city and in the country and business and farmers and so forth, that about all you had to have was 29 percent of the vote in many general elections and you elected a member of the Nazi Party to the Reichstag, and when they gained a majority in the Reichstag they abolished the Constitution and set up a government by decree. And I think this is the danger inherent in this proportional election theory. Of course, the Case proposal of one-third does help a little bit, but I would be afraid of that. Senator KEFAUVER. Well, we certainly appreciate your coming and being with us today, Congressman. Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much, Senator, for your courtesy. Senator KEFAUVER. Ŏur next witness is Mr. Irwin, but we will have about a 2-minute recess because Senator Keating wants to come back. (Brief recess.) Senator KEFAUVER. Mr. Irwin. TESTIMONY OF HENRY D. IRWIN, BARTLESVILLE, OKLA.; Mr. IRWIN. I would like to introduce as my counsel Gen. Bonner Fellers, Mr. Chairman. Senator KEFAUVER. General Fellers, we are glad to have you here. Mr. FELLERS. Thank you, sir. Senator KEFAUVER. Mr. Henry D. Irwin of Bartlesville, Okla., was a presidental elector for the State of Oklahoma in 1960. Mr. Irwin, do you wish to first give us a brief résumé of your background, your education, and business? Mr. IRWIN. I would say that I am a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, N.Y., class of 1941. Senator KEFAUVER. And what is your business? Mr. IRWIN. I have notes that will reflect that at a later date. If you wish me to explain that at this moment, I shall. Senator KEFAUVER. Just as you wish. Mr. IRWIN. I would prefer to refer to my notes in order to make it a more orderly presentation. Senator KEFAUVER. Why don't you just proceed in order, Mr. Irwin. Mr. IRWIN. Very well. Senator KEFAUVER. One thing I want to ask you. No one questions but that you are going to tell the truth. I don't know Mr. IRWIN. If you have any such fears as these, the truth as I know it and as I can document it, I certainly shall present it, sir. Senator KEFAUVER. I mean since you will perhaps be using other people's names, would you prefer to be under oath or do you just want to testify? Mr. IRWIN. As you wish. I am ready to proceed, sir. Senator KEFAUVER. If you have no objection to being sworn-I mean if you are going to say things about other people, it is better that Mr. IRWIN. Anything I have to say about other people I have documentary evidence as to their words, as I shall present them. It will |