Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956
File 023
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956 - File 023. 1956-08. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. July 8, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1469/show/1422.

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 023. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1469/show/1422

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 023, 1956-08, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed July 8, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1469/show/1422.

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
Item Description
Title File 023
Transcript (3) District System 11D IR 1 R 7D 5R OD 3R 3R SR , R 3D 12 D 1 Ii ) Ii 7D 2R ID OR SR 3R 7D 1 li 9D 5 li s li 1 D 2 1i ID 6R 4D !) It 2D 1 R 7D 9R 4D 1 li li ii 3 li 1 li 3R 3D 4R 1 R III) 4R 10 D 4R 1 R 1 1) 7 li 1 P 6 li 2 li 10 P 3R 1 D 3R 5D 4 R 5 li CD li li SD 1 1! 3 R OR 2I> 9 R 2R 0 P 1 li 1 p 3 li 5R 156 V „- 19$ minority groups found in metropolitan "liters who often can swing an election within a state from one major Partv to the other. Senator Karl Mundt °f South Dakota explains further: Sometimes these minority Oleics are ethnic, religious, political or economic "' character, but in the main they inhabit Hie metropolitan communities, where such Woes can hold the balance of power in ''ie states with large blocks of electoral w>tes, t" llie point of determining presidential decisions for 175 million people "i 48 stales. Such groups ancl organizations should have the right to operate Politically in our body politic. They have 1 Perfect right to endeavor to sell their "-'"''"> lo (he average voter. However, . . . "ey should he compelled, as presidential Candidates should he compelled, 1 alee ii nationwide appeal, instead of a localized aPpeal.s The nm't rule method is charged *ith discouraging individual political "Chvity in "sure" stales, hew members ''' the minority party bother to vote. j""(( they know their votes will be 0sb nor do many members of tbe Majority party vote, since they know their votes are not needed. Vnother serious shortcoming of the "lit rule system is the possibility that 9 ''resident can be elected not only * 'tn less than a majority popular vote, '"' with fewer popular votes than his '.'"ding opponent. This latter situa- '°ri has actually happened in the case ? Adams in 1824, Hayes in 1876, and II •'rrison in 1888. tl, Nc Problems for ettoroI Reform The first problem that must be re- ,'bed in seeking electoral reform is "' very one that plagued the framers ,' "ie Constitution: Should each voter ha tli, ottlj the sovereign states be thi ^»r voting units/ "lose vvho favor a strong central kve an equal voice in the selection of President and Vice President, or "ed "(1 government, with each individual voice, propose lfr having an equal ""ect popular vote. This would nee- :>"v ei erase state lines during an .''•"m. and would eliminate the electa! college entirely. Advocates of a V1'" vote remind us that ours is, or Slid i t>v a government of the people, 'Hi the people, and for the people. (,s<' who want to maintain the unity ,,'" identity of each state in a national '.'^ion. believing that tbe chief oxec- uhv( • rath, 0 is President of the United States HrJ • than of the American people as Ofe, lv'duals, favor either a proportional 'strict vote, or a compromise of the two. The second problem is inherent in any election: Within either system, what simple procedure will result in selection of the candidate whom a majority will prefer over his leading opponent? The present system pro- vides that whenever a majority is not achieved in the electoral vote, such a decision would be made by the House of Representatives, in the case of the President; or by the Senate, in the case of the Vice President. Most people seem to think that an election should not be made in Congress except in the most exceptional cases, vet perfecting an election mechanism that would prevent such an event seems to be extremely difficult and controversial. Many approaches have been embodied in amendments recently presented and debated before Congress. None of these amendments have been passed but they will be coming up again, in one form or the other, with many of the same arguments for and against them presented over and over again. One of the most interesting observations at the conclusion of the recent debate on the Daniel-Mundt amendment was made by Senator Prescott bush of Connecticut, who said: "I think other senators, like myself, can testify that we have received virtually no communications from the voters of our states, from the people vvho would be most affected by the amendment. Interest in the proposal is at a very low ebb, indeed. I think that is very significant, because, as 1 have said, we are debating a very important amendment to the Constitution of the United States."0 In view of this lack of a show of interest on the part of the voters, the various major proposals for electoral (•(•form will be considered here in some detail in the hope that voting citizens may become better informed, and will let their congressmen know their wishes on this important matter. Current Proposals In 1950 the Lodge-C.ossett amendment passed the Semite, but was subsequently defeated in the House. The Daniel-Kefauver amendment, essentially the same as the Lodge-Gossett plan and embodying the proportional method of counting electoral votes, was debated this spring. A second major proposal receiving attention was the Mundt-Coudert plan, which would provide for the "" "vw„„„i Record, March 22, 1956, p. 4754. •Congressional Record, March 27, 1958, p. 5047. p. ^s Forum News, August, 1956 district method of computing electoral votes. Shortly before the two plans were to be discussed, Senator Price Daniel of Texas announced that since neither plan could count on enough votes for passage, a compromise had been agreed upon by cosponsors of the two proposals, and therefore he would present a substitute amendment. This compromise became known as the Daniel-Mundt plan, and provided for a choice to be made by each state in the electoral procedure. When the Daniel-Mundt proposal was introduced, and before action on it was taken, Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota proposed two substitute amendments providing for a direct popular vote and totally changing the picture of the original proposed amendment. After due consideration, both substitute amendments were rejected. Another substitute amendment was introduced by Senator William Langer of North Dakota, which would make use of the direct popular vote, but with variations. The Langer amendment was also rejected. The simplest of the direct vote amendments was introduced by Senator Herbert Lehman of New York. This plan garnered a few more votes than the Langer proposal, but it, too, was rejected. After several days of exhaustive and thorough debate, S. J. Res. 31 as proposed by Senator Daniel and Senator Mundt was not voted upon, but instead was recommitted to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, along with several suggested changes and amendments for further study. Soon thereafter, Senator Mundt worked out a new formula and introduced it into the Senate as a basis for study, but not for action any time soon. He indicates the new proposal simplifies his former plan and is framed to meet various objections which arose during the March debates. With this over-all picture of recent Senate action, let us consider each of the resolutions mentioned above, w ith a condensed statement of the pros and cons as aired in the Senate. Daniel-Kefauver Amendment This amendment would do the following: (1) Abolish the electoral college. (2) Abolish tlie office of presidential elector. Page 21 I
File Name uhlib_1352973_v005_n008_023.jpg