Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956
File 025
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956 - File 025. 1956-08. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. July 7, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1469/show/1424.

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 025. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1469/show/1424

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 025, 1956-08, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed July 7, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1469/show/1424.

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 025
Transcript electoral vote. Thev knew the evils which arise when a chief executive assumes office, hacked only by weak support of a plurality of the total electoral vote. It is true, I know, that on twelve occasions a President of the United States has heen elected without having had a majority of the [lop,ilar vole. Hut rather than improve upon that situation, the proposal to elect hy plurality i.s almost certain to Perpetuate it. The condition will he perpetuated because it is a certain invitation for many parties to enter the field, if a plurality only i.s required. That means a breakdown of the two- party system as we know it. While that two-party system is unknown to the Constitution, it is one of the most constructive features of American government. . . . Wherever plurality decisions arc provided for . . . there is an ever-present tendency toward minority control. A well- Organized, compact minority may easily Prevail over scattered, divided majorities. . . . Furthermore, it is never enough to say that a possibility is remote when a failure to guard against such a possibility may he fatal. The supporters ol representative government must win every battle; their opponents need only one victory and it is over for the future." Not only do the opponents of this Plan believe that the proportional system would encourage the growth of "lird parties, or fourth, or fifth, until the two-party system is endangered, jjut that if these parties have a vote in the election of the President or Vice President, they will then probably demand proportional representation ln Congress. Wherever proportional representation in the legislative body lias been Employed an unstable government develops, as in France. This principle ^duld put men in the legislature vv ho ••6Uncompromising and immoderate. People vvho measure their differences ["bier than their likenesses. This is )('cause under proportional repicsen- 'ttton the constituents of a representa- ,v<' are not the people living in a geo- sjaphical area, but an abstract group of voters who think alike. Such a representative would not have to consider 'hose who may differ with him. hi line with this it is also argued Ult under the proportional system the l*Presentative in the legislature would 1(1 controlled by the party managers "ho really appoint him to represent a "'"hemalical constituency, and these '''"'ty managers would demand obedi- ^Ce rather than thought. The Senate Committee Beport '"isvvers this objection by pointing out '.'•'t the election of the President and '°e President by proportional count 0ll'd not introduce the principle of """'<', pp. 107 8c 109. b acts Forum News, August, 1950 proportional representation in Congress. But proportional representation is obviously inapplicable to the election of a single official to one position, such as the President of the United States. As Senator Lodge has stated. "Even the cleverest surgeon cannot divide one man up, proportionally or otherwise, and expect him to live." This proposed plan to give each presidential candidate his rightful share of the electoral vote, therefore, should not be confused with (he system of constituting a legislative body or similar group on the basis of proportional representation.10 Senator Ferguson pointed out that, though sponsors of the resolution make much of the disfranchisement of voters under the present system with losers' votes being added to those of the winner, a plurality winner may have only 1(1 per cent of the electoral votes. "What of the defeated majority. with 60 per cent of the votes?" he asks. "Are their votes not lost, too, or considered as counted for the minority winner? As a matter of fact, I cannot become excited over the argument of lost votes. It seems to me to be only an appeal for popular support ftir the resolution, an appeal without real substance in reason ami logic. "In eveiy election where there can be but a single winner, all votes east for the losing candidates can be said to be lost," continues Ambassador Ferguson. "Sponsors of the resolution would merely transfer the lost votes so-called from the state to the national level. In truth, no votes are lost when validly cast in an election. They are counted toward whatever tbe final decision is, whether it be the unit of an electoral majority or tbe plurality of electoral votes, and if found insufficient to win, they have simply exhausted their power as votes."11 The final argument against the Daniel-Kefauver amendment, formerly known as the Lodge-Gossett plan, is that this system would be a weakening of states' independence, even though it wouldn't completely obliterate state lines in tt national election. Many of the advocates of this plan admit they would favor a direct popular vote, eliminating the electoral vote altogether, except that thev know there is very little chance of acceptance of such a plan by enough states to make the amendment valid. Those who uphold states' rights believe that even the Daniel-Kefauverproportional vote plan would be one step in the direction of losing state sovereignty in elections. "•Ibid., p. 114. "Ibid., p. 111. Mundt-Coudert Amendment This "district vote" plan contains the following provisions: (1) A single elector is assigned to each congressional district within the state. The total number of district electors corresponds to the number of representatives each state has in Congress. (2) Each state is assigned two electors at large, corresponding with the number of senators each state has in Congress. (3) These electors are elected from each district and state in the same manner as representatives and senators. (4) An absolute majority of all of the electoral votes cast in all congressional districts and states is necessary to win the national election. (5) If no one candidate has such an absolute majority, the election goes over to Congress, with the Senate and House of Representatives voting as one body, each member casting one vote. There is no requirement that the winning candidate have an absolute majority in Congress. Arguments in Favor of the Mundt-Coudert Amendment According to the advocates of this plan, the district electoral vote would have great advantages over both the present system and the proportional vote system. It will, they claim. achieve a desirable symmetry with the procedure for the election of Congress. Since both the executive and legislative branches of the government will be elected on the same basis, conflict between the branches will be eliminated. This would also preserve the small state-large state balance embodied in the allotment of electoral votes according to size of a congressional delegation. The proponents claim further that this amendment will substantially reduce the risk of electing a minority President, i.e., one who receives fewer popular votes than his leading opponent. In order to win an electoral vote under the district system, a third (or fourth, or fifth) party would almost have to carry at least one congressional district; the only alternative would be to win enough popular votes in the state as a whole to capture one of the electoral votes allotted for the electors at large. This would discourage the "splintering" of political parties. This amendment would diminish Page 23 l\ I
File Name uhlib_1352973_v005_n008_025.jpg