| Transcript |
rust. ,, change in tbe electoral process
involves an amendment to the Constitution, a complicated and time-consuming procedure which requires a
two-thirds vote by both branches of
Congress, plus ratification by three-
fourths of the states. Second, the concensus after each attempt seems to be
that the proposed change, in attempt-
•ng to solve one or more problems,
Would create others, so that apparent-
'y it would be better to hold off until
a more perfect solution presents itself.
The most progress such a proposed
'"nendment has ever made was passage by the Senate of the Lodge-Cos-
sett amendment in 1&50, only to be
followed by defeat in the House.
What Is the Present System?
L Under the present procedure for
the election of the President and Vice
President, the Constitution provides
"at each state appoint, in such manner as its legislature directs, a number
°t electors equal to the number of senators and representatives of that state
"J the U. S. Congress. Although the
e'ectors, meeting in their respective
■We capitals, are not under any legal
Propulsion to vote for the candidates
0 whom they are pledged, in general
"ey east their votes in accordance
w>th their pledges. The candidates for
. resident and Vice President reeciv -
nS a majority of the electoral votes
ast are elected.
« no candidate for President re-
('lvi's a majority, the House of Repre-
entatives chooses the President from
e three candidates having the great-
vst number of electoral votes. This
st°''ng in the House is conducted by
('s- each state having one vote re-
wdless of its size, the vote of each
ate being determined by separate
. te of its delegation. A majority vote
"ecessary for election.
j, Similarly, if no candidate for Vice
. esident receives a majority from tbe
ectoral college, the outcome is decid-
'n the Senate from tlie two highest
and''dates.
jc ederal statutes govern the mechan-
(L °f the electoral process, including
Jaws determining time of election,
ti ?ting of the electors and casting of
tor'i Da"ofs> am' counting of the clee-
al ballots in Congress.
'ate laws determine the manner in
?ov ''le electors are chosen and
h. ''rn other election procedures and
y activities within their respective
tJiit s' T,l('sc laws naturally vary,
Ur(_ '" one important aspect the states
"niform: they have all adopted the
J?
^Ts Forum News, August, 1956
"unit rule." This means, for example,
if one state has 24 electoral votes, and
a popular election gives 14 for the
electors on the slate of the Democratic
partv- and 10 for the Republican, the
Democrats would control all 24 votes.
As originally conceived, the electoral college was intended to be composed of men of ability and reputation, who would exercise an independent judgment in their selection of the
President and Vice President.
At first the states elected or appointed
members lo the electoral college by districts. There was no such thing as a party
slate of electors. Then in 18(10 several
northern anti-Jefferson state legislatures
amended their election lavs in such a way
thai the voter would vote for a general
ticket of the state's entire quota of electors. Thus an entire state bloc of electors
would be elected hy majority vote, and
the minority of pro-Jefferson voters, in
those states, would have no representatives in the electoral college. The Virginia
Assembly then adopted a similar law in
defense of Jefferson, and the "unit rule"
was on its way toward being universal —
as it is today. It has remained common to
all stales down through the years. It is, of
course, to the advantage of whichever
political party is dominant in a state to
retain the system.
Legally, the electors cannot he hound
to vote in the electoral college for any
nominee, but may vote as thev- please.
Politically and morally, however, they are
pledged in advance as a unit ancl thev so
vi'le with rare exception. Thus the "unit
rule" is part state law and part political
custom which has gained the force of
law.1
Reasons for Maintaining
Present System
Proponents of the present electoral
system defend it primarily on the
basis that it has served the people reasonably well for many years, in spite
of certain defects. More specifically,
they say unit rule has discouraged the
growth of minority parties. The two-
party system, as opposed to multiple-
party or coalition government, is generally conceded to be an integral part
cl the success story of American government. None of the sponsors of contemporary proposals for change, at
anv rate, want to encourage the development of splinter parties, the scourge
of European politics. Homer Ferguson, U. S. Ambassador to tbe Philippines and former senator, says:
It is perhaps the best commentary on
the importance and durability of the two-
party system that this country has known
70 political parties iu its history, each of
which has elected at least one member of
Congress, tint each one, and in a very
short time, disappeared or was absorbed
in one <>l the two major parties. This did
not happen by luck or chance. The electoral system itself had much to do with
it. . . .
Under the present unit system, minority
political groups, usually advocating extreme views, rarely attract enough votes to
capture the electoral vote of a state. At
most, they can swing their voting strength
between the two major parties. . . . Their
inability to gain electoral votes under the
unit rule deprives them of incentive to
remain compact and to grow as individual
parties. At the same time, their limited
voting strength is enough to cause ferment
in the major parties, which are forced to
clean house and adopt new ideas to gain
the aid of minority groups. The result is
to prevent fragmentation into multiple
parties with all its attendant evils, and to
preserve and to invigorate the two-party
system."
Some who favor the present system,
or at least who feel that the best possible alternative has not been produced as yet, point out that the electoral college i.s federal in its concept,
preserving the basic rights of the
states to vote as states.
Defects in Present System
The defects of the prevailing method of election, according to those who
would change it, are threefold:
(1) Relenlion of the office of elector. The electoral college has degenerated into a mere rubber stamp, say its
critics. Instead of being selected for
ability, prestige, and keen judgment,
as envisioned by the framers of the
Constitution, present-day electors are
often unknown, completely meaningless to the average voter.
More important, the individual elector is only morally and politically
bound to vote for candidates of his
party. Legally, there is the possibility
that electors may disregard their
pledges, thereby conceivably creating
a dangerous situation. For instance, if
on election day it appeared that one
candidate needed but one electoral
vote to command a majority in the
electoral college, the pressure on individual electors would be tremendous.
One or more such changed votes.
under the unit rule, could change the
vote of the entire state, perhaps having a decisive role in the total election
picture.
There i.s the risk, furthermore, that
a successful candidate for the Presidency or Vice Presidency will become
incapacitated between the date of the
election and the date on which the
electoral college meets. The selection
of a substitute candidate would necessarily be left to the discretion of the
electoral college.
ing
r
n
' "W'li.il (lie I .;iw Now Provides,*
Dig. rt, Vii.il. L956, p. 102.
Congressional
-"Should tbe Tropordonal'
Adopted?" ibid., ». 109.
Electoral Method Be
Page 19
|
