OCR Text |
Show August 1970 Poge 3 UTAH FARM BUREAU Shall We Reform The Electoral College By LeGrand Jarman, Legislative Director It is very important that we become informed on some of the ramifications of the present move by Congress to reform the system of electing the President of the United States. The material that appears in this article has largely been selected from the writing of three able Constitutional Law Professors: Alexander M. Bickel of Yale; Charles. Black of Yale and Ernest Brown of Harvard. In order to be brief we will present only a summarization of their most enlightening reports. Let us begin by quoting from a speech by the late President Kennedy which was made while as a U.S. Senator arguing against reform of the electoral college. He quoted a writer named Falkland, i When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change. One other simple observation seems to be appropriate: We the citizens of a nation which is provided with a government structure well supplied with checks and balances often decide we would like to participate in some form of exercise which is forbidden by the Constitution. So we say, "Lets change the Constitution. Upon close analysis we find that the exercise was purposely forbidden by our founding fathers because there were very evident dangers -- associated with this particular exercise. The urge to reform the system arises out of two apparent weaknesses: (1) The provision makes possible the existance of a Faithless Elector, or one who votesfor the candidate not implied by instructions of the voters in his state, this has happened some six times in the history of the country. receives a majority of the (2) If no candidate electoral votes, the House of Reprsentatives then selects the President by an election which permits each state one vote. In close elections this could reverse the popular choice of the people very easily and the application of voting power is not related to either the principle of the Electoral College or to the one man - one vote philosophy. Probably the finest argument in favor of retaining the electoral college is that it has been the law for 190 years and very few principles of law have had less conflict over this long period of time. It has served well and only now w'hen new modem philosophies of government are being promoted does it come under attack after a close election w'here the projected calamity just didn't happen. With a time tested provision of constitutional government why dont wre repair the weaknesses rather than throw away the whole system. This is like W'recking a piece of heavy equipment because the tires are worn out. Former Attorney General Katzenbaeh suggested a possible plan tha should be given some serious consideration. It provides three major changes which not only retains the electoral college but uses the same principles in the selection of the President in case no candidate receives a It is very simple but also very dangerous. There are only two major provisions: (1) Election of President by popular vote. (2) If no candidate receives a 40 of the popular vote there will be a run off election between the two We will only be able to briefly top candidates. mention the problems related to this suggested new system but much printed reference is available for those who would like to study it. (1) This is a dilution of constitutional government by moving away from the Representative Republican form towards the one man- - one vote philosophy. (2) President could be elected with a very narrow A few large states could geographical mandate. elect the President while the greater area would be for the losing candidate. (3) The time between the November election and the January Inaugeral is too limited to allow for a special election. 4. Related to No. 3 when there is a real close election with the delayed problem of counting absentee votes there maybe some time elapse before the actual results are known. (5) Also in very close elections with the present problem of voting interference in some states there may be some uncertainty as to the actual winner. 6. The urgency for recount would multiply. If one state because of close voting decides on a recount the urgency could spread to every state with a close vote and delay the results for some time. Such excuse for recounts could result from races within the state on local candidates but spread to effect the Presidential election. Thse could even expand into legal contests and affect several states. (8) Legal countests in a nation election could likely find jurisdiction only in the U.S. Supreme Court. This would l)e a new activity imposed on this high tribunal. (7) By shifting the voting onto a national level and away from the unit states would in all probability sooner or later shift the nominating processes onto 9. a national level. This is a sure system of destroying Federalism. Our Nation is a Federation of states and such an election process makes a big step in doing away with the image of the Federation of States. (11) Possibly the greates danger of the Bayh plan is the dilution of the two party system. No other single activity of our structure is so protective of our two party system as the electoral college. It just plainly discourages splinter parties because of the winner takes all affect. Too often, the Bayh plan would tend to encourage other parties and independent candidates to enter the race. (10) Close to the evil of no. 11 is the corruption of run off elections. Some of the independent candidates will be there only for te purpose of trading there support to a candidate in the run off for certain (12) majority: The electoral votes of a state will be auto- matic with the results of the election in the state. There will be no persons involved. of one vote per state will (2) The iinit system be eliminated for voting in the House of Representatives. All members of the House will vote. kv. (3) The Senate willalso be permitted to vote. This amendment has been introduced by Senator Ervin. (1) , - The Farm Bureau has suggested that the electoral college votes be determined by the results of the election in each congressional district. If the district elects a Democrat the vote would be for the Democrat candidate for President. The two vote representative of the two Senate seats would be cast according to the winning party state wide. The resolution which hastily passed the house and is now being considered in the Senate is called the Bayh amendment after Senator Birch Bayh, its sponsor. favors. It is very possible that because of run off trades that the candidate with the greatest vote in the election would be the loser in the run off. This is the type of vote manipulation evidenced in countries where multiple parties are involved in elections. (13) Second elections could and often will provide internal damage that cannot be overcome. This again is due to the intense political trading and manuvering that goes on in a second or run off election. Let us say as a conclusion that a constitution that is as old as ours has already given evidence that it is good. We should be careful in our effort to destroy its basic principles which were put there to protect us from ourselves. (14) , |