Just to see where you are on this philosophically is interesting inasmuch as much of your booklet tends to believe that liberals are bad and conservatives are good, at least you believe the movement for direct election is a liberal movement-whatever liberal is in this day and age.

Do you think that we would be better off with a parliamentary system in this country, as far as districting is concerned, rather than federalism?

Mr. DIAMOND. No; I do not.

Senator BAYH. How far would you push the benefits of districting in the contribution of the States in the context of the electoral college? Does it concern you at all about the contingency plan in the present electoral college system where each district has the same weight in the final outcome?

Mr. DIAMOND. No. I believe the throwing of the vote to the House of Representatives where each delegation would vote as a single unit as a State unit-that this is unwarranted. I regret that compromise that was made in 1787 and would prefer that the House and Senate, as a whole, would then be the contingency body.

However, there's one thing to be said for the present one. It's so horrible no one ever goes to it.

Under the run-off contingency provision of the Bayh amendment, it's my judgment that it would be gone to every time. The contingency, I believe, will become the real election. The second election will become the real election.

The nice thing about the prospect under the present electoral college about the House of Representatives is it is such a horror that we haven't gone to it since 1828. In my judgment, we are not likely to for many a good year to come.

Senator BAYH. We have come very close to it.

Mr. DIAMOND. I don't think so. Many of the scholars have shown that the mathematical chamber of horrors trotted out after many elections is only that-a mathematical chamber of horrors.

That a change of several hundred votes in Delaware, 6,000 votes in Hawaii, 20 or 30 in Oregon, would have done such and such. Senator BAYH. Do you deny that fact?

Mr. DIAMOND. No: I didn't. But what I insist on

Senator BAYH. Others have made this assertion just as you, but I haven't seen any evidence at all. Everybody is entitled to his own philosophy. We're trying to suggest that if you have empirical evidence to the contrary, let's have it.

Mr. DIAMOND. Let me offer some empirical evidence.

Had there been a change of 20 votes here and 30 votes there, there would have also been changes of 20 elsewhere and 30 elsewhere.

That is to say, focusing on each election and picking up two or three States and juggling the figures to show how it might have gone otherwise is to abstract a single set of data from a complicated interrelated whole.

That is to say, if the votes would have changed in Hawaii and Delaware, some would also have been switching around in Ohio and Indiana. And there is no way, suppositiously, to say that the contingency came close.

We have not, for 150 years, approached the contingency. That's a pretty powerful empirical record.

Empiricism, 150 years of experience, is on the side of the proponents of the electoral college. Supposition, guesswork, and unevidentiary speculation is the stock in trade of the proponents of the change.

Senator BAYH. You say we shouldn't have any change then.

Mr. DIAMOND. No; I don't see how you drew that inference. Because I'm against the change in one place where the dangers are wholly suppositious and the good wholly positive, I don't see how you can infer from that I would be against change on anything. I'm for all kinds of changes.

If the Senator will give me the opportunity, I have my chance to unburden myself before the American people.

Senator BAYH. They will be glad to hear what you have to say. I wish we had more time to do that.

Mr. DIAMOND. I am for lots of changes.

Senator BAYH. In reading the booklet, I probably have a pretty good idea of what some of those changes are.

I don't want to argue this point with you. I don't see how you can dispute the fact. You talk about changes here and changes there. If there had been a composite change of less than 11,000 votes, we'd have had different results. If there had been a composite change of around 70,000 votes in 1968, we'd have had an entirely different result. That's factual.

Mr. DIAMOND. I don't dispute that.

If I may quote my grandfather: If grandmother had wheels, she'd be a trolley car.

[Laughter.]

That is to say, that supposition has not, for 150 years, had the least shred of reality to it.

I heard you question the previous witness about unwarranted suppositions. I think 150 years is pretty strong grounds for saying that the constant speculation-"dear me it could have gone otherwise, and we could have had this horror"-is pure speculation about what might have been and has never occurred.

Senator BAYH. I think you'd probably have a lot of fun with Russian roulette. If you spun the chamber five times, and it hadn't gone off, you'd keep spinning.

Mr. DIAMOND. I like the Russian roulette example. May I deal with it for a moment?

In Russian roulette, if you fail, you get killed dead. In this one, if you fail or lose, all you have is the election of 1888, in which nobody got hurt.

There has been a great deal of speculation about the loaded pistol. I would like to offer some evidence.

We lost the game of Russian roulette in 1888. The loaded pistol went off in 1888 and nothing happened. Grover Cleveland and the Democrats lost, and the country didn't turn a hair. They just elected him the next time, and we had good, solid, stable, tranquil, and legitimate government.

If we had a President who had a few less votes than the fellow who got more than him, why would that be having played Russian roulette? Why would that have been a loaded pistol to our heads! What would have happened is that someone would have squeaked

94-982 O-77 - 11

through by a fluke. The American people would grin and bear it and throw him out the next time if they didn't like what he did.

Flukes happen. In my judgment, that is as close to Russian roulette as a pimple is to cancer.

Senator BAYH. We're all entitled to our own assessment. Some people think the person elected President of the United States ought to be the choice of the largest number of the people. Obviously, you don't think that's necessarily going to be a problem. And I don't think I am going to change your mind; and at the rate we're going, I don't think you're going to change mine.

Mr. DIAMOND. May I say

Senaor BAYH. Let me go on to another element, so that we can get on with some of the other witnesses.

In the document printed by the American Enterprise Institute, is that your position or theirs?

Mr. DIAMOND. That's my position. I don't know much about theirs, but I know what mine is. The American Enterprise Institute itself takes no positions on public policy issues.

Senator BAYH. Another distinguished senior consultant of the American Enterprise Institute, a fellow named Gerald Ford who has had perhaps a little more experience than either you or I in this process, comes down on the opposite side of this issue. He thinks we ought to have direct election of the President. That's what makes the country what it is, I guess, and we ought to have differing opinions. Let me ask you this, just to touch on one other point. First of all, I just can't let the assessment you made that primarily liberal thinkers are supporting the direct election amendment in order to do all the things you believe liberals have in mind.

I feel that our colleague, Senator Garn, would probably have a differing view of how you characterize him. He's an enthusiastic supporter of this amendment. Senators Bellmon and Bartlett also are enthusiastic supporters, and I doubt that they would like to be called political liberals. I don't think are a minority either. Senator Baker wouldn't like to be categorized as a liberal-whatever that means-nor would Senator Dole. And so you go down the list.

The remarkable thing about the support for this amendment is that we've had Republicans and Democrats, small States and big States, represented, and people seem to rise above their normal philosophic predilections because they think there's something rather basic here.

One of the issues that you raise that some of them have taken issue with is the emphasis you place on federalism, that the electoral college supports federalism.

I think when you have time that you might be interested to read Senator Dole's testimony. I'm sure he would not be at all comfortable being categorized in your assessment that this is part of the liberal movement, nor your assessment that federalism is protected by the electoral college.

Mr. DIAMOND. I don't remember when I did that, Senator. In my written pamphlet, I think I suggested something that you may be using.

I simply didn't in my oral statement.

What I have said in the written document, and not at all in the

oral, is that the initial attacks on the electoral college came from liberal and progressive thought. That's not bad. Lots of good things came from that.

I simply identified it, and I think with historical accuracy, as to its source.

Now, Senator Dirksen-Senator Baker's father-in-law-and others changed their minds. Some conservatives joined some liberals in the attack on the electoral college. But I don't remember stigmatizing this or categorizing this.

Senator BAYH. I think you have reached one who hasn't lived with every word, as I'm sure you have. But one gets the very strong inference that you feel this is some sort of a liberal effort, and I just want to point out that it is not. To suggest that the original emphasis comes this way denies the fact that the first effort to change the way we elect our President and have a direct popular vote for the President goes back to 1816. I can't tell you what the philosophy of that fellow was. I don't know if they had liberals and conservatives then. I know we had Whigs and Torries and Federalists and all sorts of others. This issue transcends normal philosophies.

With respect to Federalism, Sentor Dole felt that as far as his experience in the political process was concerned, the electoral college has an anti-federalism impact. I think the words he used were: Direct election would provide a common sense federalism.

Federalism is supposed to let the States have equal attention in the process. His experience with the electoral college was to the contrary. I won't repeat it, because he said it so graphically from personal experience.

Both he and Senator Humphrey testified together that the impact of the present system and the way in which the compartmentalism works with the unit rule interpretation causes the impact of many States to be totally lost in parts of this so-called "Federal" electoral college system.

Mr. DIAMOND. I find it difficult to go against so formidable a duo of practical wisdom as that of Senators Dole and Humphrey.

I most certainly have to agree with some of the facts. In any election, some States are scanted. They change from election to election, because this is a dynamic, flexible electoral college.

And in every election, some voting groups are scanted because this is a dynamic, adaptable, and flexible system. There is no fixed category of the neglected and ignored. They change.

Politicians, I understand from academic discovery-and I may, in a moment, suggest some practical experience with the matter— go where the votes are.

Now where are the votes? Not just where are the numbers of people, but where are the undecideds? Where the voters who can be brought out by effort are. Where the changeable of mind are.

This changes from day to day during the campaign and from election to election.

The electoral college does not, in a fixed way, favor one State over another. It changes dynamically. If Kansas and Minnesota did poorly last time, wait and they will do well again. They have been decisive in the past and will be decisive in the future.

The marvelous thing about the electoral college is its demographic responsiveness. It shifts and changes with the times and with the tides of public opinion.

May I, Senator, at my own instigation mention something from practical experience.

You asked the previous witness if he had ever spoken to minority parties about the electoral college. May I say I have some practical experience.

I had the honor to be a colleague of Norman Thomas for many years and was a member of the National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party for many years.

I remember those days with fondness. I believe I learned something from it, and I think some of the things I did along with my coassociates was of value to the United States.

One thing we all had in common was an absolute detestation of the electoral college. It was one of the chief barriers to the success of minority parties.

You will find that in Norman Thomas' marvelous book, "A Socialist's Faith." They were the words of a wise and reflective Socialist in his later years as he looked back on his long experience.

We knew that we didn't have a snowball's chance in the nether regions to get on the ballot and to win any States. Whereas, under the system you propose, we would have made hay while the Sun shined during the late autumn.

We started out always with 5 or 6 or 7 percent who said they were for Norman Thomas. And I'm now quoting Thomas: About the third week in October, it would be down to 2 percent; on the first day of November, it would be down to about 1 percent; and on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, it would be down to about 150,000 votes. Period. The reason was that there was no chance of victory in any State.

Your 40-percent provision, with the contingency runoff election, was precisely what we prayed for. Unfortunately, the manna came from Heaven too late for my use in the Socialist days.

Senator BAYH. It's interesting for me to see how you make a parallel of going from 5 percent to 1 percent and going from 5 percent to 20 percent or more which you have to do if everything else was mathematically equal in order to cause a run off.

Mr. DIAMOND. I can handle that one, sir, I believe.

You see the Socialists could go to 5 percent, but there's no reason under your proposed system, as I understand it, why 20 percent has to be garnered by one party.

I believe that the 20 percent would be garnered by 15 or 20 parties. I can name 4 or 5 of them: Wallacites, Henry and George; McCarthyites, Eugene and Joseph; Socialists, Trotskyites, Communists, black militants, yellow militants, green militants, purple mili

tants

Senator BAYH. Tell me this. Suppose we had had that this time. Give me the worst horror story you can think of. Let's go through that kind of an election. What do you suppose the results would have been? Put Norman Thomas out there in full force. Where would he have finished in this?