Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956
File 024
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956 - File 024. 1956-08. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. May 30, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1469/show/1423.

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 024. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1469/show/1423

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 024, 1956-08, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed May 30, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1469/show/1423.

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 024
Transcript on I >r Provide for direct voting for President and Vice President. (4) Retain the electoral voting strength of each state as at present, one vote for each member of Congress, but provide that such electoral vote be divided in exact ratio with the popular vote. (5) Provide that the winning candidate must receive at least 40 per cent of the electoral vote, failing in which the Congress would select the President or Vice President from the two highest numbers of electoral votes. Arguments for the Daniel-Kefauver Amendment Proponents of tbe Daniel-Kefauver amendment claim that by abolishing the electoral college they will abolish an archaic and undemocratic method that not only is not helpful, but contains potential harmful elements, such as allowing electors to depart from a pledged vote. Most of the defects of the electoral college have already been discussed. The Senate Committee Report that was to accompany S. J. Res. 31 to the floor stated also that because this proposed constitutional amendment provides for the automatic division of a state's electoral votes on the basis of the popular vote, all the evils inherent in the unit rule method of counting electoral votes are either wholly eliminated or greatly minimized, The counting procedure would be legally uniform in all the states. The possibility that a President might be elected in spite of the fact that he polled fewer popular votes than his opponent would be virtually eliminated for the simple reason that the new system would bring the electoral vote and the popular vote much closer together. This plan is supposed to reduce substantially the influence that pressure groups or "splinter" factions exercise in the large pivotal states and the big cities by swinging large blocks of electoral votes. In 1948, for example, the Wallace vote, though meager in comparison vv ith the total vote, threw two states to Thomas Dewey. Small groups in the large pivotal states, under the present system, hold an enormous bargaining power because they may add enough votes to either party, or withhold enough votes from either partv, to swing 47 electoral votes in New York or 35 electoral votes in Pennsylvania. Former Representative Edward Gossett of Texas explains further: Page 22 Senator Price Daniel ID-Texasi authored an amendment for electoral reform using the proportional system of counting electoral votes. Later he cosponsored a compromise bill with Senator Mundt which has gone back to committee for reconsideration. Now, under tin present system, it is generally conceded that you have got to tarry a number of the pivotal states. Ilnw (let you clci lli.it? Yen don't appeal to those who lire normally Republican or normally Democratic. If yon can go out ancl appeal to the prejudice or selfishness of some particular group and get the votes of that group e asse, von have won.7 Under the proportional plan, however, no minority group would be any stronger than the number of votes actually cast for it, and these would be east on the basis of merit rather than on bargaining power. Also from tbe Senate Committee Report: Presidential campaigns, campaign effort, and campaign funds would no longer be almost exclusively concentrated in the big pivotal doubtful states, to the exclusion of the smaller populated states or sure states. This method of making every vote for President count would tend to spread the campaign and any subsequent presidential activity into all the 48 states. . . , It would discourage the prevailing tendency to nominate presidential candidates only from among the residents of those states having a large electoral vote. The danger and detriment to the general wel- lare is obvious when the field ol presidential possibilities is so restricted. The whole nation should he the field from which to select Presidents.8 The arguments given thus far in lav or of the Daniel-Kefauver amend- (Senate Committee Report, op. cit , p. 118. ""Should Ihe 'Proportional' Electoral Method Adopted?" op. cit., p. 110. ment are so-called corrective measures, designed to remedy evils in the present system. Aside from these, there are three additional advantages claimed: (1) By effecting a compromise between the existing system and the idea of a direct popular election, the amendment would completely preserve and protect the rights of the small states. No state is given any greater power in electing a President than it has in passing a bill through Congress, and by retaining the distribution of electoral votes on the basis of each state's number of congressmen, representatives and senators, this power is in no way diminished. (2) The proposed system of dividing each state's electoral vote in proportion to its popular vote offers a far more accurate and equitable method of reflecting popular sentiment within that state. Under the present system, without popular vote totals, it won'' be completely impossible to tefl whether a state bad voted overwhelmingly in favor of the successful candi' (Kite or whether he had gained all l'J the electoral votes in a "photo finish Considered from this point of view this proposed new system enhances •' state's vote in presidential politics b^ cause it reflects more accurately "i popular will in the state. By this same token, the illusion tha a relatively close election is a "Ian"' slide victory" on a national scale, aij^ a crushing defeat for the loser, wot" be dispelled. (3) Supporters of this proposed & form believe also that its incorporati'" into the Constitution would greatly i*1' vigorate the two-party system in 1" United States, therefore breaking l'1' so-called solid or one-party areas. Arguments Against the Daniel-Kefauver Plan Most of those who oppose the 1"^ portional plan of electoral rc^or<J agree that the electoral college shou be abolished, and perhaps agree tjfl the unit rule as now employed is " just and needs changing. But tn j have grave doubts as to the workaP* ity and advisability of counting stJ electoral votes in direct proportion a popular vote within the state. One major objection is to the * quirement that a candidate receive" simple plurality of electoral votes ' stead of a majority. The fathers of this country took SP*°J care to see that a person elected as Pr**j deal attained a clear majority of the "'' Facts Forum News, August, ™
File Name uhlib_1352973_v005_n008_024.jpg