Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956
File 022
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956 - File 022. 1956-08. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. May 29, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1469/show/1421.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum. (1956-08). Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956 - File 022. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1469/show/1421

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum, Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956 - File 022, 1956-08, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed May 29, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1469/show/1421.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956
Series Title Facts Forum News
Creator
  • Facts Forum
Publisher Facts Forum
Date August 1956
Language eng
Subject
  • Anti-communist movements
  • Conservatism
  • Politics and government
  • Hunt, H. L.
Place
  • Dallas, Texas
Genre
  • journals (periodicals)
Type
  • Text
Identifier AP2.F146 v. 5 1956; OCLC: 1352973
Collection
  • University of Houston Libraries
  • Facts Forum News
Rights No Copyright - United States: This item is in the public domain in the United States and may be used freely in the United States. The item may not be in the public domain under the copyright laws of other countries.
Item Description
Title File 022
Transcript on I la 2) Elections in the House of Representatives. When no presidential candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the House of Representatives is designated in the Constitution as the final umpire. This would give all states, regardless of population equal power in electing the President. Similarly, if a candidate for Vice President does not carry the majority electoral vote, the Senate vvill determine the victor. This is entirely contrary to the basic principle of the whole approach to presidential elections, namely, that each state's relative voting power shall be measured in terms both of the state as a unit (represented by the two electoral votes for the two senators) and the state in terms of relative population (represented by the number of electoral votes for tbe number of representatives). Of course, such an emergency situation has not happened very often. There are only two instances in the history of the country, 1801 and 1825, in which Congress has thus performed the duties of the electoral college. (3) The unit rule method of counting electoral votes. Opponents of this general ticket method contend that literally millions of American voters are disfranchised in every presidential election. The 1948 elections furnish an excellent example of this point: Mr. Dewey received in the 16 states which he carried a total of 8.6 million votes. These 16 states gave him a total of iS9 electoral votes. But in the 32 states which Mr. Dewey failed to carry, he had a total of 13.3 million votes. This great mass of popular votes for Mr. Dewey gave him not one single electoral vote ancl, therefore, counted for naught. They were of no more effect than if they had not been cast at all. In the 1948 elections, Mr. Dewey was credited with all of Connecticut's eight electoral votes, even though he commanded hut a hare plurality of the popular votes. Some 423,000 votes were cast for Mr. Truman, hut these votes were wholly disregarded in the computation of Mr. Truman's electoral strength, ancl. actually, they were all credited to Mr. Dewey. In other words, these 423,000 votes were computed precisely the opposite of the way they were cast.8 Senator Herbert Lehman of New York, as well as many others, pointed out in the Senate debates that under the unit rule system the weighting of electoral votes is not fair. In South Carolina in 1948, for example, it was demonstrated that one electoral vote represented 17,(X)0 people, while in California an electoral vote represented 168,000 people. In New York one -Sru.itt' Committee Report, ibid., pp. 106 & 108. Page 20 1952 RESULTS UNDER THREE METHODS Result of the Popular and Electoral Vote Cast in 1952 Presidential Election Comparing the totals under (1) the present system, (2) the proposed "proportional" plat and (3) the proposed "district" plan. Alahama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut. . . Delaware Florida < leorgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine .Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi. . . . Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada Neve llampsliin New Jersey. New Mexico New York North ('ai'cliiia Null li I laknta Ohio I iklalioma 1 li'igiiii Pennsylvania. . Hluiclc Island South (Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia. \\ ashington \\ est Virginia Wisconsin \\ yeaning Total. .. Tota Popular Vote 420,120 200,50!) 404,800 5,141,84!) (',30.103 1,096,911 174,010 988,086 651,303 270,254 4,481,058 I ,'.155,325 1,208,773 896,166 993,148 661,952 351,780 002,074 2,383,398 2,798,592 1,379.IS3 285,519 1,892,002 2,15,037 609,660 82,190 272.952 2,419,554 238,608 7,128,241 1,210,910 270,127 3.700,75N 9IS.9SI 695,059 1,580,562 414,498 341,121 294,283 892,553 2,076,846 329,551 153,557 619,689 1,102,708 873,548 1,607,370 129,251 l.l,', I7.sii I Party Percent K (Rebublican) D (Democrat) 35.0 R 58.4 R 13.8 li 56.4 R 00.3 R 55.7 It 51.7 R 55.0 It 30.0 Ii 05.4 R 54.8 R 58.1 R 03.8 R 68.8 i: 19.s R 17.1 K 66.0 R 55.4 It 51.2 K 55.1 R .",.-,.3 i; 39.6 I! 50.7 I! 59.1 R 69.2 I! 01. I It 00.9 R 56.8 It 55.1 li 55.4 Ii 10.1 R 71.0 li 56.8 li 54.6 li 60.6 li 52.7 Ii 51.0 R 10.1 li 69.3 li 50.0 Ii 53.1 li 58.9 li 7 1.5 li 50.3 li 54.4 Ii is.i li 61.0 li 62.7 li 55.1 li 01.5 I) 41.6 D 55.9 D 42.7 D 38.9 D 43.9 D 47.9 D 45.0 D 69.4 D 34.4 D 45.0 D 41.0 D 35.0 I) 30.5 I) 49.9 D 52.9 I) 33.8 D 43.8 D 15.5 I) 44.0 D 41.1 D 00.4 D 19.1 I) 40.1 D 30 8 D 38.6 D 39.1 I) 42.0 D 11.3 I) 13.6 I) 53.9 I) 28.4 I) 13.2 I) 15.1 I) 38.9 I) 10.9 I) 49.0 1) 50.7 I) 30.7 I) 19.7 I) 10.7 1) 11.1 I) 28.2 I > 13.1 I) 11.7 I) 51.9 I) 38.7 I) 37.1 I) II 4 D % The Electoral Vote 0) Pres't. 11 D 4 R 8D 32 R 0 R 8R 3R 10 li 12 D 1 li 27 II 13 R 10 R 8R It) I) 10 I) 5 R 9 It 10 li 20 R 11 li 8D 13 li 1 li 0 Ii 3 Ii 1 Ii 111 li 1 li 15 li I I I) I Ii 25 1! 8 R 0 li 32 li 1 R 8 I) I li II I, 21 li 1 li 3 li 12 R 9 R 8 I) 12 R 3 li 112 89 li I) (2) Proportional System 3.85 R 2.3 Ii 3.5 R 18.0 R 3.0 li 4.5 R 1.0 R 5.5 R 3.7 R 2.6 R 14.8 R 7.1'. li 6.4 i: 5.5 I! 5.0 li 4.7 R 3.3 R 5 0 li 8.7 Ii 11.1 li 0.1 It 3.2 R 0.0 R 2.1 Ii 1.2 li 1.8 R 2.1 li 9.1 li 2.2 R 21.9 II 6.5 li 2.8 R 11.2 Ii i i l; 3.0 li 16.9 li 2.01 li 3.7 Ii 2.S li 5.5 Ii 12.7 Ii 2.4 li 2.1 Ii li.S Ii I.'J 1! 3.s i: 7.3 li 1.9 li 2XS.5 li 7.1 D 1.7 D 4.5 D 13.7 D 2.3 I) 3.5 D 1.4 D 4.5 D 8.3 D 1.4 D 12.15 D 5.3 I) 3.5 I) 2.4 D 5.0 I) 5.3 1) 1.7 I) 3.9 1) 7.3 I) s.s n 1.5 I) 4.8 D 6.4 D 1.0 1) 1.8 D 1.2 I) 1.0 I) 0.7 1) 1.8 1> 19.6 I) 7.5 II 1.1 I) 10.8 1) 3.0 I) 2.3 11 15(1 II 1.96 I) II li 1.2 I) 5.47 1) 11.21) 1.11 I) .8 I) 5.2 I) 1.0 li 4.2 I) 1.6 li 1.1 I) 239.8 li (3) District System 4R 1 It 20 R 0 R S li 3 R 7R 4R 20 R 12 R 10 li 8R 3 Ii 1 R 5 R 8R 12 R 16 R 9 li 1 li 9 Ii 1 li i; ii 3 Ii I Ii 13 Ii I li 31 R I li i i: 21 li 7 1! (i li 22 li 3 li 3 li I li 5 li 10 It 1 li 3 li 10 li 9 li 2 li 11 Ii 3 li li 11 D 7D 6D 3D 12 D 7D ID 7D !)D I I) I I) I D 2D 7P 1 D 3D 14 D 10 D I I' I D 10 P 11) 5P 0D 8D 2D ii P I l» 150 I' Reprinted by pen from the pro and con publicatit al Dige.t, April, I956, P- ,!)•■ electoral vote represented even more people.4 Proponents of electoral reform contend that unit rule results in too much emphasis being placed on the larger, so-called "swing" states in presidential campaigns. It is pointed out that there ■ -sioiiid Reeoril, March 23, 1956, p. 4839. is a natural temptation for a candid'1'1 who can win 45 electoral votes li'1"1 New York State alone to concent''''1 his campaign in that state, and ■ natural temptation for a party to p'1 candidates from the larger states. I''" thermore, strategy frequently dicta'* that important concessions be made I'm is Forum News, August 10'
File Name uhlib_1352973_v005_n008_022.jpg