Senator BATH. Our witnesses today include our very distinguished colleague from the State of Kansas, Senator Robert Dole, who is one of the cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 1 and one of the leading spokesmen of direct popular election of the President. We are also pleased to have with us at the request for Senator Scott, Ms. Judith A. Best, who is an associate professor of political science at the State University of New York in Cortland, N.Y., and at the request of Senator James B. Allen, Mr. J. Edward Thornton, an attorney from Mobile, Ala.

Senator Dole, we are very grateful for your willingness to appear before this subcommittee and give us once again the benefit of your thoughts which have been tempered by the very rare experience of participation in national political campaigns both as chairman of one of the national parties and as a candidate for the Vice Presidency. You bring to us a practical understanding of the workings of our national campaigns and our Presidential election system which are invaluable to the rest of us as we consider the adoption of this very important amendment.

TESTIMONY OF HON. ROBERT DOLE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS; ACCOMPANIED BY BOB DOWNEN

Senator DOLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At the outset, I would say that this is controversial in some aspects, to go to direct election. As I review my positions on electoral reform over the years, going back to 8 years in the House of Representatives, I was familiar with nearly every one of the different plans. That includes the district plan, the proportional plan.

When I first came to the Senate in 1969, I worked on a so-called Dole-Eagleton plan; it was sort of a hybrid. So, we have been all over the lot.

I finally determined that the best way to resolve the problem is by direct election. I have held that view consistently since 1971 or 1972. I have appeared before this committee at least two or three times, and am very pleased to be here again.

About 6 months ago, I was before the committee with the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Senator Humphrey. I spoke about the sense of urgency. Having just come out of a campaign at that time, I recognized that if each State had just one electoral vote, I would not be here this morning. We had 27 States to President Carter's 23. So, I can see some reason not to be too anxious for direct election; maybe we ought to step back aways and give each State one electoral vote.

On the other hand, a change of popular vote-as everyone knows of a few thousand votes would have made a difference. As I said at the time, I probably could have learned to live with that, knowing that we did not get as many popular votes as Senator Mondale and Mr. Carter. But President Ford was also a strong supporter of direct election and has been for some time.

When we boil it all down, it is pretty hard to argue with the fact that it ought to be on a direct election basis. I know that some members of the committee still have questions, particularly insofar as it affects small States. As I look over the list of sponsors,

I find Senator Baker. Tennessee is not so small, but neither is it large.

There is Senator Garn from Utah, Senator Leahy from Vermont, Senator Bartlett from Oklahoma, Senator Bellmon from Oklahoma, myself. Senator Pearson does not appear as a cosponsor, but I am certain that Senator Pearson supports direct election. So, it is a rather close question.

The distinguished chairman has one view, and the distinguished Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, has another view. So, it is a question I think we have all tried to resolve in our own minds. I am not trying to dilute the strength we have in our own small States. At the same time, we are trying to be objective.

There may be valid arguments that I am not aware of. However, my decision to support direct popular election is based on some study and a great deal of thought.

Since my last testimony in January, the extent of popular bipartisan support for direct election of President and Vice President has been demonstrated by national polls and by the statements of national leaders. Both the Gallup polls released in February and the Harris survey released in May show overwhelming 5-to-1 popular support for direct popular election of the President.

Only 14 percent and 13 percent of the persons participating in the respective polls favored retention of the electoral college. Anyone who has been involved in politics knows that such one-sided popular support on a controversial issue is extremely rare. It reflects a clear consensus of the American people in support of changes in our present electoral college system.

I might say that over the years it has been increasing. I do not suggest that you jump on the bandwagon because you see the Harris and Gallup polls rising. I do state that it indicates that there is a growing support and feeling among the American people that this is easily understood. It is something that everyone can understand.

It is favored by 77 percent of the people in the East, 75 percent of the people in the Midwest, 65 percent of the people in the South, and 81 percent of the people in the West. So, it is not just favored by the urban areas and the big cities.

By type of work, 80 percent of professionals, 75 percent of executives, 75 percent of skilled laborers, and 76 percent of white collar labor favors the constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college. Seventy-one percent of persons calling themselves conservative and 78 percent of persons calling themselves middle of the road or liberal favor direct popular election.

The proposal is favored by 74 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of Republicans, and 81 percent of independents, according to the Harris survey. I know that does not come as news to anyone in this committee, but it indicates again the broad base of deep support across the board for the direct popular election.

Since my appearance here in January, direct popular election has been endorsed by both the Carter administration and by former President Ford. It seems that almost everybody has come out in support of direct election except, perhaps, the required two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. Within the next several months, I believe the U.S. Senate may well catch up with the rest of the American people in expressing its support for Senate Joint Resolution 1.

94-982 O 77-3

I think, after all is said and done, the beauty of direct popular election really lies in its simplicity and straight forwardness. It just makes good commonsense. Everytime I think of some complicating factor, I come back to the point that it does make a great deal of commonsense. We can have all sorts of complicated philosophical justifications for retaining the present system, but direct election is easily understood.

It is very easily administered. It promises the least delay and the minimum opportunity for outside factors to distort the will of voting citizens.

I have tried to put together a little laundry list of points that I would like to stress.

First of all, it would guarantee that the candidate with the most votes would be elected. That seems to be rather important.

Second, it would count the vote of each citizen equally regardless of where he lived and how his neighbors voted.

Third, it would eliminate possible faithless electors who are free to disregard the will of the voters. I might say, in that regard, that I received one more electoral vote than President Ford; so I really finished third last fall because one of the electors in the State of Washington voted for me and voted for Reagan. I did not finish last, but third in the Presidential race last year.

Again, it makes the point that you cannot control the elector. Fourth, it would reduce the premium on fraud in pivotal electoral vote States.

Fifth, it would strengthen, I think, the two-party system, even in present one-party States. Let's face it; in some States the candidates for President and Vice President spend little time, if any, because it is a one-party State. There are no votes to compete for. You have got to have a majority, so you bypass that State. I think of one of two that we did not spend a great deal of time in. As I look back on it, there were probably some others that we could have avoided.

Sixth, it would remove the possibility of electors bargaining away their electoral votes in an electoral college stalemate.

I say, as a Republican, I would rather take my chances with the direct election than going to the Congress in case of a stalemate. It seems to me that the odds are rather against any Republican candidate. Although the problem has been around for a while, I am confident it is a short-term problem and that we will be able to take care of it soon. I do not know how soon, but it will be soon.

Seventh, it would increase the confidence of the American people in their electoral system.

One problem that bothers me and I am certain the chairman. has spent a great deal of time on this-is the run-off contingency. It is a matter that I believe I touched on in January; and it should be fully discussed with the emphasis on insuring, if there is a necessity for run-off, that it be properly controlled and efficiently and quickly done so that we would not be going into the next year, for example, without having anyone elected for the office of President or Vice President.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the rest of my statement a part of the record.

Senator BAYH. Without objection, it will be inserted in the record.

Senator DOLE. Also, there is some question about the media.

Senator Scott is concerned that a direct election will bypass many of the smaller States insofar as media attention is concerned.

Somebody said there is a map of our travels here.

Senator BAYH. We just got these maps prepared last evening. We have three: one for your campaign travels, one for President Carter, and one for Vice President Mondale. We are looking forward to having former President Ford's schedule, also, which we understand is being forwarded.

Senator DOLE. If anybody wants to look at the travel map, it does indicate that in Arizona, Wyoming, and Idaho which are three small States for example our polls indicated we were well ahead; so we did not go to those States. I wanted to go to those States. It seemed to me that we ought to go to every State, but we did not have the time.

[The chart and campaign maps indicating the candidates campaign stops were marked "Exhibit No. 9" and "Exhibit No. 10" and are as follows. The maps face page 30.]