APPENDIXES [APPENDIX 1] PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DICK CLARK, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to testify before this subcommittee to support the proposed constitutional amendment outlined in S.J. Res. 1. Co-sponsored by 41 senators, this proposal will eliminate the Electoral College and finally will place the crucial decision of selecting the leaders of our nation where that decision belongs directly in the hands of the American people. Mr. Chairman, you are known for your advocacy of election reform, and your leadership in seeking change in the electoral system. The resolution which is being considered today represents over a decade of consideration and is, in my judgment, the best possible procedure for electing the President and the Vice President. Certainly, now is the best possible time for acting on this urgently needed and long-overdue reform. Last fall, the voters of this nation elected a new President and Vice President. Jimmy Carter's margin of victory was 1.7 million votes, yet under the present system, the Electoral College could have given the presidency to Gerald Ford, who received fewer popular votes. The way the Electoral College is constituted is by state, with each state allotted votes equal to its number of Senators and Representatives, with all states but Maine employing the "unit rule" or winner-take-all system. In 1976, a shift of only 9,245 votes-5,558 in Ohio and 3,687 in Hawaii-would have switched the electoral votes of those two states to Gerald Ford, "electing" him by an Electoral College count of 270 to 268. A shift of only one-hundredth of a percent of the nearly 80 million votes cast would have been all that was necessary to throw the nation into a serious crisis. Fortunately, such a crisis was narrowly avoided, but 1976 was our third close call in the last two decades. In 1960, John Kennedy was the winner by 100,000 popular votes. In that election, a shift of less than two-hundredths of a percent would have given the Electoral College victory to Richard Nixon. In 1968, only a seven-hundredths percent switch was needed to deprive the candidate with the most popular votes an Electoral College majority. Mr. Chairman, these are just the most recent examples of a fundamental flaw in our electoral system-that the present system cannot guarantee that the candidate with the most popular votes will be elected. As you know, in the history of American presidential elections, there was actually one occasion in which a candidate received a popular vote higher than his opponent, yet lost the Presidency in the Electoral College. In 1888, although Grover Cleveland received a popular plurality of about 100.000 votes over Benjamin Harrision, he obtained only 168 electoral votes, and Harrison, with 233 electoral votes, was elected President. In two other elections, the candidate who was elected President received a smaller number of popular votes than his closest opponent: In 1824, although Andrew Jackson received more electoral votes and more popular votes than did John Quincy Adams, the election fell into the House of Representatives, which gave a majority of its vote to Adams, and Adams was elected President. A somewhat different situation occurred in 1876. In that election, although Samuel J. Tilden received a majority of more than 250,000 popular votes over Rutherford B. Hayes, the returns from Florida, Louisiana, Oregon and South Carolina were contested. An electoral commission created by Congress to settle the dispute decided the contested returns in favor of Hayes, and Hayes won the election by one electoral vote. On five other occasions in this century, most notably in 1916 and 1948, a shift of less than one percent of the popular vote would have produced an electoral majority for the candidate who received fewer popular votes. How is it that this constitutional provision has allowed so many aberrations and "close calls" in our electoral history? To begin with, the Electoral College was an uneasy compromise reached by the Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. On the one side of the debate were those framers who feared the power of the electorate. On the other side were those constitutionalists who believed in the power of individuals to choose their own leader. A "Committee of Eleven", assigned to forge an agreement, settled on a compromise solution which imposed a layer of electors above the general voters electors who would actually vote for the President. By 1800, however, the idea of an independent elite, selected by the state legislatures to choose the President, became almost meaningless with the appearance of political party candidates. The parties more accurately reflected the desires of the electorate than did the Electoral College. By 1826, in fact, a Senate report stated that the electors had "degenerated into mere agents in a case which requires no agency and where the agent must be useless if he is faithful and dangerous if he is not." Pressures for reform of this system of Presidential election have grown over the past century and half. Yet, today, the Electoral College still retains its constitutional role. In recent years, through the persistent efforts of Senator Bayh and others, the movement to abolish the Electoral College has gained momentum. Scores of resolutions have been introduced, a Constitutional amendment has been debated by the Senate, and an amendment has passed the House of Representatives by more than the required two-thirds majority. There have been a number of alternative plans proposed to reform the electoral college system. While no system is without its shortcomings, I believe that S.J. Res. 1 provides the best approach to reform because of its simplicity and its guarantee of direct voter participation in electing the President and Vice President. S.J. Res. 1 eliminates the problems caused by the Electoral College, and provides safeguards to prevent candidates with less than a plurality of popular votes from being elected President. Implementation of direct elections would give every presidential ballot equal weight in deciding the outcome, for votes would not be divided by state, and the unit rule would no longer prevail. Neither the "small state advantage" of the guaranteed three electors, nor the overwhelming big state block of votes would be in evidence. Furthermore, the votes for the loser in the presidential race in the various states would not be discarded, as they are in the present system. Additionally, a small proportion of a state's voting population, the "swing votes," would no longer be able to throw a state's entire electoral vote to a candidate. The possibility that electors might cast their ballots for candidates other than the one to whom they are pledged is also eliminated. Finally, the direct election eliminates the possible election of the President by the House of Representatives if the Electoral College does not produce a clear majority. The problem caused by each state, regardless of size, casting one vote would be enormous, and could possibly not reflect in any way the actual vote. To assure the election of a President with a clear cut victory, S.J. Res. 1 provides that in the unlikely event that no candidate receives a plurality of 40 percent, a run-off would be held between the two leading candidates within thirty days of the first election. Such a run-off would guarantee that the electorate, rather than an anonymous group of electors or the House of Representatives would make the final decision on the leadership of the nation. Mr. Chairman, an overwhelming majority of the American people believe it is time to turn away from our presently archaic and potentially dangerous method of selecting national leadership. The people of my own state of Iowa are no exception. That point was driven home most effectively when the Iowa presidential electors met in Des Moines in December. Besides casting their electoral votes, the electors themselves passed a resolution urging congressional action to reform the electoral college system. Later in a poll conducted by the Des Moines Register in mid-January, 72 percent of those interviewed responded that future presidential elections should be decided by national popular vote. Mr. Chairman, on January 6 the Congress convened in joint session for the counting of the Electoral College ballots by the Vice President. I hope that was the last time we are called upon to perform that ceremonial function. It is my hope that the Judiciary Committee can report this joint resolution to the Senate quickly, and that the Congress will pass the amendment by the requisite two-thirds in time for the states to act before the next election. The opportunity is before us to revise our electoral system so that by 1980 the Presidency will be directly in the hands of the American people. Additional Publications of ABA Special Committee on Election Reform The Vice-Presidency. Proceedings of Symposium held December, 1976, in New York City. Order from Fordham Law Review, 140 W. 62nd Street, New York, NY 10023 ($3.50) Public Financing of Elections: A Constitutional Division of Wealth. 1975. Study by Thomas J. Schwarz for the ABA Special Committee on Election Reform. Order from William S. Hein & Company, 1285 Main Bldg., Buffalo, NY 14209 ($9.50 plus 75¢ postage) Symposium on Campaign Financing Regulation. Proceedings of Symposium held April, 1975, in Tiburon, California. Order from William S. Hein & Company, 1285 Main Bldg., Campaign Financing After Buckley v. Valeo. Proceedings of Symposium held February, 1976, in Washington, DC. (ABA Product No. 3570002) Order from American Bar Association, Order/Billing Department 357, 1155 East 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637. ($5.00) This revised edition was prepared by the ABA Special Committee on Elec- Copyright © 1977 American Bar Association The recommendations contained herein were approved |