ADDITIONAL STATEMENT 1. A system which has worked so well in practice should not be discarded merely because it seems a little illogical. 3. The system is weighted in favor of the smaller and more rural States. This has a stabilizing effect similar to the granting of two Senators to any State regardless of size. 5. Introduction of proportional division of votes would be a step in the direction of the splinter-party system of continental Europe which paralyzes government. 7. Single-elector districts would be an invitation to gerrymandering and should be avoided at all costs. 9. I should favor referring a disputed (or tied) election to a joint meeting of the House and Senate. 10. Voting should still be by States, after a State-representation caucus. The superior experience of the Senators would be beneficial in the caucus. I should prefer to have no changes at all if there were any question of calling a Constitutional Convention. Twenty evil spirits might rush in while one was trying to sweep out one small imp. LILLIAN PARKER WALLACE, Head, Department of History and Political Science, Hon. ESTES KEFAUVER, SAN JOSE STATE COLLEGE, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR KEFAUVER: I have enclosed the Political Scientists' Questionnaire. The only change that I favor in electing the President is the abolition of electors, but the retention of the present electoral vote system. This is a plan once advocated by the late Senator George Norris of Nebraska. I think it is important to keep the electoral college because it is only here that the urban voter is not always out-voted by his country cousins. I left question 1 unanswered. The only reason I hesitate to favor an amendment of the Norris type is my fear that an amendment might open up other undesirable projects. Very truly yours, FREDERIC A. WEED, Head, Department of Political Science and Public Administration. NEW SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, GRADUATE FACULTY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, Senator ESTES KEFAUVER, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, New York, N.Y., July 6, 1961. Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR KEFAUVER: Thank you for sending me the questionnaire which you addressed to all department heads of the American Political Science Association. May I take the liberty of saying that I am afraid the question is put in terms which are too formal to really get to the problem? I have been very much disturbed by the directions taken in presidential elections. It is not, however, the electoral college which bothers me or the way in which the votes may be counted. It is rather the problem of how a citizen may learn to vote. Madison Avenue and all the various agencies would seek to give the voter an image which may or may not correspond with the reality make it extremely difficult for a serious person to participate in a process of rational choice. It seems to me that the Congress ought to explore the problems of rationality. Could you not study legislation which will modify irrational appeals? Why should it not be possible to eliminate "spots" by demanding a minimum time for political broadcasts? I do not think that there can be an appeal to reason in 30 seconds. I do not have in mind a complete program of legislation to supplement the suggestion. I just made it because I think you could do valuable service to the American people indeed if it were shown-and shown compel lingly that a presidential election is not always what it is intended to be or what it claims to be. Sincerely yours, HOWARD B. WHITE, Acting Dean and Chairman of the Political Science Department. FRANKLIN AND MARSHALL COLLEGE, DEAR SENATOR KEFAUVER: I am quite willing to concede that the present system has an urban bias. But it seems to me that this is perfectly proper so long as we have a Senate with two representatives from each State, regardless of size and a House of Representatives which, for a variety of reasons, has a rural bias. May I deal with one other aspect of this problem. Time and again, students of electoral college reform attempt to analyze past elections in terms of what might have happened had another system (such as Lodge-Gossett) been used. This misses the point completely. The real question is—what type of candidate would each party have nominated, what would have been the platform emphases, and what issues would have been emphasized in the campaign if the alternative electoral system had been employed. Furthermore, with all the shortcomings of our present two-party system, it seems to me it is a better arrangement than that which would result from any of the proposed reforms I have seen. Too many of the critics of the present system are either wittingly or unwittingly trying to further reduce the role of executive power, the political strength of our urban areas, and what little party government we presently enjoy. Very truly yours, SIDNEY WISE, Associate Professor. ATTACHED STATEMENT TO POLITICAL SCIENTISTS' QUESTIONNAIRE, FEDERAL ELECTIONS HEARINGS, MAY-JUNE 1961, U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS I favor the plan proposed by James MacGregor Burns, Professor of Political Science at Williams College, in the New York Times Magazine, December 18, 1960. Professor Burns' main proposals are: (1) To abolish electors, but to retain the electoral vote unchanged. (This, by the way, a proposal made as early as 1934 by the late Senator Norris of Nebraska.) (2) To abolish the provision that the winning presidential (or vice presidential) candidate must have a majority of the electoral votes, thus permitting a plurality to suffice. Professor Burns points out, in my opinion correctly, that this would not encourage a multiparty system, as long as in each State the entire electoral vote goes to the presidential (or vice presidential) candidate who has won a plurality in the State. I am opposed to any proportional system for dividing the electoral vote and to the district system. The reasons opposing such proposals are convincingly listed in the letter sent to the New York Times by 10 social scientists of national renown, and printed in the issue of May 17, 1955. In this letter it is also pointed out that any change in the electoral vote provisions could be considered only if simultaneously new Federal provisions guaranteeing actual equal representation of urban and rural areas in the House of Representatives were passed-otherwise the influence of rural interests at the expense of urban interests would be further extended, in particular if the district system were introduced for selecting presidential electors. GEORGE V. WOLFE, Professor of Political Science, О NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF PRESIDENT FICATIONS FOR VOTING COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS ON S.J. RES. 1, S.J. RES. 2, S.J. RES. 4, S.J. RES. 9, PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION RELATING AND S.J. RES. 14, S.J. RES. 20, S.J. RES. 54, S.J. RES. 58, PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION RELATING 70784 HELD MAY 23, 26, JUNE 8, 27, 28, 29, AND JULY 13, 1961 ᏢᎪᎡᎢ 4 Appendix and Index Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LIBRARIES NITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 2 - 1 8 6 3 Duties and Powers of Presidential Electors, by Mollie Z. Margolin, American Law Division, Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress, dated June 23, 1961- The Electoral Process and the Power of the States, by Donald M. Wilkinson, Jr., reprinted from the American Bar Association Journal, Will the South Decide the '60 Election?, excerpts from an article entitled "Presidential Elections; A Study of the Appointment and Function of Presidential Electors," by Hall E. Timanus, reprinted from U.S. News & World Report, July 11, 1960- Irresponsible Government, by David Lawrence, reprinted from U.S. News & World Report, December 12, 1960- Electing a President Still as Uncertain as Ever, by J. R. Wiggins, reprinted from the Washington Post, December 11, 1960. A New Course for the Electoral College, by James MacGregor Burns, reprinted from the New York Times Magazine, December 18, 1960. Evils of the Mundt-Coudert Plan, Evils of the Lodge-Gossett Plan, excerpts from a speech by Hon. Paul H. Douglas, a U.S. Senator from Illinois, delivered in the U.S. Senate, March 26, 1956 The Ideal Method of Selecting the President of the United States, by Frederic R. Coudert, Jr., reprinted from "Selecting the President: The Twenty-Seventh Discussion and Debate Manual (1953-1954)”. Presidential Elections, 1788-1928, an excerpt from "Political Parties and Opinions, 1788–1930," reprinted from Atlas of the Historical Geography of the United States, by Charles O. Paullin Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the United States during the First Century of Its History (excerpts concerning choice of President and Vice President), by Herman V. Ames, reprinted from the Annual Report of the American Historical Society, 1896.. The Resolution of Electoral Deadlocks by the House of Representatives, by Paul J. Piccard, reprinted from "Selecting the President: The Twenty- Seventh Discussion and Debate Manual (1953–54)”. Residence Requirements for Voting, by Walter Kravitz, History and Government Division, Legislative Reference Service, Library of Con- State Action To Lower the Voting Age, 1943-1960, by Walter Kravitz, History and Government Division, Legislative Reference Service, Li- Specifications for a Model State Presidential Primary Law, by Paul T. David (Brookings Institute, April 1956) – Toward a Model State Presidential Primary Law (excerpts), by Manning Performance and Potential of Presidential Primary Laws, by Richard H. Hansen, reprinted from Nebraska Law Review, 1960.. The Convention System of Ratification, excerpt from an unpublished manuscript by Paul T. David, dated August 16, 1960- Library of Congress study on effects of abolishing presidential electors - - |