Elections: Reforming the College

“Perilous,” cried one witness. “A real danger,” said another.

They were appearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, chaired by Tennessee Democrat Estes Kefauver. Their warnings had to do with a scheme being pushed by Southern segregationist leaders, under which presidential electors would not be pledged to follow the popular vote in their state.

The unpledged elector plan, aimed at loosing states from national party ties, is not likely to get very far. But it does call renewed attention to a wide spread feeling that the U.S. electoral college system, as set forth in the Constitution, is an anachronism. Under examination by the Kefauver subcommittee are seven proposed constitutional amendments for reforming the presidential electoral system. The main avenues of approach:

∙ MAKE THE ELECTORAL-VOTE SYSTEM COMPLETELY AUTOMATIC. Under a 1956 proposal made by then-Senator John F. Kennedy, the rigmarole of naming electors would be abolished. The candidate who got the most popular votes in each state would get that state’s full bundle of electoral votes without any ado. Kennedy’s plan would perpetuate the system, but tidy it up a bit, getting rid of the rituals and forestalling such aberrations as the South’s unpledged elector movement.

∙ DIVIDE EACH STATE INTO ELECTORAL DISTRICTS, similar to congressional districts, with one electoral vote apiece. Under a plan sponsored by South Dakota’s Republican Senator Karl Mundt, each state in addition would have two statewide electoral votes. His plan, says Mundt, would diminish “the present inordinate power of organized pressure groups.” Among the objections: state legislatures would be tempted to gerrymander electoral districts.

∙ ABOLISH ELECTORAL VOTES ALTOGETHER. Under a proposal by New York’s Republican Senator Kenneth Keating, among others, the President would be directly elected by the overall national popular vote. Most Democrats oppose this plan, and many conservatives object that by depriving the states of all significance in presidential elections, the Keating plan would weaken the already battered federal system.

∙ SPLIT UP EACH STATE’S ELECTORAL VOTES AMONG THE CANDIDATES IN PRECISE PROPORTION TO THEIR SHARES OF THE POPULAR VOTE IN THE STATE. This approach, sponsored by Massachusetts’ then-Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. in 1948, would get rid of the failings of the present all-or-nothing arrangement, while at the same time retaining a vestige of the federal system. The Lodge plan is resisted by Kennedy Democrats, including John F. himself, who fought hard against a version of it in the Senate in 1956. One flaw is that in a close election, such as Lincoln’s in 1860 or Kennedy’s in 1960, splinter parties could prevent any candidate from getting a majority of the electoral votes, and the election would be thrown into the House of Representatives. To prevent that, Lodge urged inclusion of a clause making 40% of the total electoral votes sufficient to elect a President.

The arithmetic of the various plans is fascinating. Kennedy won in 1960 with 303 electoral votes to Nixon’s 219 (Virginia’s Senator Harry F. Byrd got 15). Under the Lodge plan, Kennedy’s total would have been 264 (to Nixon’s 259), five fewer than the 269 needed for a majority. According to the present constitutional requirements, the outcome would have been decided by the House, with each state, regardless of size, having one vote. If every state delegation in the House had decided to cast its vote for the candidate who carried the state, Nixon would have been elected President, 26 to 24. Under the Kennedy plan, J.F.K. would have won handily on electoral votes, 317 to Nixon’s 220. Under the Mundt plan, Nixon would have won, since he carried more congressional districts and more states than Kennedy did. Under the Keating plan, Kennedy would have won if only a plurality of the total popular vote was required; if an absolute majority was required, there would have been no winner, and again it would have been up to the House of Representatives to choose the President.