Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956
File 027
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956 - File 027. 1956-08. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. November 26, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1469/show/1426.

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 027. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1469/show/1426

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 027, 1956-08, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed November 26, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1469/show/1426.

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 027
Transcript the unit rule, all-or-nothing system, while the other states would be (-'hanged to a district system. Another objection is that it would offer minority parties a chance to obtain electoral vote recognition, an inducement to their growth. Congressman Coudert has claimed the district plan would minimize the Influence Of splinter parlies. He lias cited the 1948 election in New York, where Henry Wallace's Progressive partv took enough popular votes from Truman In enable Governor Dewey to gain a plurality and till the state's electoral votes. However, under the unit rule system, the rcccircl shows that splinter parlies do not gain a permanent foothold, their real threat. The same Progressive party received 500,000 votes in New York, alone, in 19 IS; vet in 1952 it received fewer Hi.in 135,000 votes in the entire nation. The Mundt-Coudert plan oilers a minority or splinter party a chance for electoral vote stature, virtually impossible under the present system. By concentrating in a district or districts, the Progressives, So- ('i,ilists, or even the Communists might »btain district electoral votes.' 'he Daniel-Mundt Compromise Amendment Before the presentation of S. J. lies. "1 as originally formulated, ancl as Sported favorably out of committee j*st year, a compromise vvtis reached Petween the sponsors of the Daniel- Kefauver and the Mundt-Coudert TOendments. As a result, fifty-four Senators eosponsored a substitute jjOiendment, still known as S. J. Res. rj> which became known as the P&niel-Mundt amendment. Other seniors prominent in its sponsorship J'ere Senators Estes Kefauver and ^trom Thurmond. These are the major rcconimenda- "°ns of the Daniel-Mundt amendment: (1) Each state would adopt the Proportional vote system as outlined Previously in the Daniel-Kefauver "''n, unless a state legislature chose ^e district plan. To provide the elec- 0ral vote, the popular vote of the , ate would be divided mathematical- / among the three candidates for resident or Vice President having ^e highest vote. • (2) The state legislatures would aVe the choice of using the district el, J^ctoral vote system, as outlined in he Mundt-Coudert plan. Under this 'Stem each congressional district °uld vote as a unit to select one elec- r. thereby providing the same num- \r!( 'Should ih,. 'District' Electoral Method He t*?Pied?" Congressional Digest, April, 1956, pp. '-128. J,, a<ts Forum News, August, 1956 WIDE WOBLD PHOTO An amendment proposing the district electoral method was introduced in the Senate this spring by Senator Karl Mundt (R-S.D.I, and this was later incorporated in the compromise Daniel- Mundt amendment. ber of electors as representatives in Congress, plus two electors chosen at large, corresponding with the number "I senators from each state. (3) Any candidate for elector who before the election has pledged his vote for President or Vice President lo a specific person shall, if elected, cest his vote for such a person. (4) A majority vote is necessary for election. (5) If a majority vote is not secured for President or Vice President, then Congress, sitting in joint session, shall choose such officer from among the persons having the three highest numbers of electoral votes, with a majority vote being necessary for election. Arguments for the Daniel-Mundt Compromise Since this compromise provides for the adoption of the proportional system, except when a state legislature specifically chooses the district system, the arguments in favor of both proposals as stated previously were given again ancl expounded upon: Both systems are supposedly designed to give an electoral vote which would more accurately portray the will of the greatest number of people, uni still maintain tlie federal principle. They both claim encouragement to the two-party system and to small states. Under the present system big cities, big states, and pressure groups have the advantage, according to the sponsors of this compromise plan. They claim that when all the votes of a state go to the candidate carrying e\ en a bare plurality, the rest of the voters are disfranchised. Senator Clifford Case of New Jersey raised the question of whether the present system has actually led voters to become unduly influenced ancl subservient to pressure groups, or whether this is a vague fear which has no basis in fact. In reply, Senator Mundt explained the working of big-city boss- run political machines. . . . One of the really serious challenges to democracy in this country has been the development of the boss-led political machine of the big city, which is pressme- groupisni at its worst; which provides the opportunity for a few selfish people in politics to seek pelf rather than to render public service, and to exert influence in the ureal metropolitan areas of the nation to the extent that they can control the entire electoral college vote of a big state. By throwing it en masse and en bloc, through one modification or another, one way or another they can then determine the selection of the President and thereby determine the destiny of America." With the importance of large cities, large states, and pressure groups lessened, campaigns would not center in those areas, to the neglect of other sections of the country, and candidates could be selected from any area, depending on merit rather than upon vote-getting power. In addition to these arguments and others, described in more detail earlier, the combination of the two sv stems would have the advantage of giving the states a choice of either of the two systems that it feels may best meet the needs of its people. Although proponents of the Daniel-Kefauver proportional plan believe that system the best, and proponents of the Mundt-Coudert district plan believe primarily in the merits of their plan, those that offer the compromise plan believe that either is preferable over the present system. Arguments Against the Compromise The same strong arguments were offered against the Daniel-Mundt compromise amendment as were offered against the individual resolutions that became parts of the compromise. One important objection, for instance, is that any proportional electoral vote system would encourage third or splinter parties, ancl may eventually pave the way for proportional election in Congress. Another major point made against "Concrc.AKumal Record, March 23, 1956, p. 4829. Page 25 fs ine t
File Name uhlib_1352973_v005_n008_027.jpg