to govern the Presidential election held that November). This too is a precedent to keep in mind.
TWO BIZARRE PROPOSALS
Because the American people have got to face up to the reckless gamble they are taking with the Presidency, it is necessary now to explore two proposals that were made only semi-seriously during the 1968 campaign but which deserve serious consideration, since each was practical and in the future might tempt desperate men who want to grab the Presidency.
When it became apparent that Wallace was going to siphon off a respectable number of electoral votes and perhaps prevent either Nixon or Humphrey from winning, it was proposed in various quarters that two alternative courses ofaction could make Nelson Rockefeller President. In the first case, suppose the division of votes to have been Nixon 248, Humphrey 248, Wallace 42, which would produce not only an inconclusive electoral vote but also a fairly balanced distribution of state delegations in the House, so that neither Nixon nor Humphrey could have counted upon a victory there, either.
In this impasse a beautiful stratagem lay open to the Rockefeller forces: simply persuade the New York electoral delegation of 43 votes to cast them for Rockefeller, who would then wind up in third place in the electoral voting, one vote ahead of Wallace, and would be one of the three names sent to the House, the other two being Nixon and Humphrey, neither of whom had a probability of victory. Then, in the House, a deal could be struck between the deadlocked Republicans and Democrats whereby Rockefeller, who might prove acceptable to both, would be given the Presidency upon his pledge to conduct a bipartisan administration.
In the second instance, imagine the vote to have been Nixon 234, Humphrey 234, Wallace 70, with an evenly divided House. New York’s electoral votes alone will not project Rockefeller into third place, but all that is required is for Pennsylvania to join the compact, and with her votes Rockefeller again winds up in third position, with two votes more than Wallace, and is again put forth to the House as a compromise candidate satisfactory to both parties.
This is not preposterous. New York and Pennsylvania laws do not punish electors of their states for voting as they wish; they are not constitutionally bound by election results, and ifthey preferred Rockefeller to the alternatives, they could have voted for him, with the results as indicated. There may be readers who would have preferred Rockefeller to either of the two major candidates, but no man should be elevated to the Presidency by a trick of this nature. The simple way to protect ourselves is to revise our election laws.
The second strange proposal preoccupied me from the moment I thought of becoming an elector, and I am surprised that not more critics of our system have been aware of its possibility. Article II of the Constitution first enunciated a principle which has never been altered. It consists of two clearly worded statements: The electors “shall make a List of all the Persons voted for … and transmit sealed … to the President of the Senate.” If the vote is inconclusive, “then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot.” In the Twelfth Amendment the two words
immediately choose
were reversed as a matter of style, but the basic law remained the same.
The question is: to which Congress does the list of electoral votes go, the old one or the new? And which House is entitled to do the choosing? Prior to the election I showed this provision to the fifty men and women of whom I spoke earlier and asked them what the words meant. Half said, “Of course it means the Congress in being now”—that is, the 90th; the other half said with equal conviction, “Naturally it means the incoming Congress”—that is, the 91st. The question has never been adjudicated; only custom, written into law in 1934, has determined that it should be the incoming Congress
TWO BIZARRE PROPOSALS
Because the American people have got to face up to the reckless gamble they are taking with the Presidency, it is necessary now to explore two proposals that were made only semi-seriously during the 1968 campaign but which deserve serious consideration, since each was practical and in the future might tempt desperate men who want to grab the Presidency.
When it became apparent that Wallace was going to siphon off a respectable number of electoral votes and perhaps prevent either Nixon or Humphrey from winning, it was proposed in various quarters that two alternative courses ofaction could make Nelson Rockefeller President. In the first case, suppose the division of votes to have been Nixon 248, Humphrey 248, Wallace 42, which would produce not only an inconclusive electoral vote but also a fairly balanced distribution of state delegations in the House, so that neither Nixon nor Humphrey could have counted upon a victory there, either.
In this impasse a beautiful stratagem lay open to the Rockefeller forces: simply persuade the New York electoral delegation of 43 votes to cast them for Rockefeller, who would then wind up in third place in the electoral voting, one vote ahead of Wallace, and would be one of the three names sent to the House, the other two being Nixon and Humphrey, neither of whom had a probability of victory. Then, in the House, a deal could be struck between the deadlocked Republicans and Democrats whereby Rockefeller, who might prove acceptable to both, would be given the Presidency upon his pledge to conduct a bipartisan administration.
In the second instance, imagine the vote to have been Nixon 234, Humphrey 234, Wallace 70, with an evenly divided House. New York’s electoral votes alone will not project Rockefeller into third place, but all that is required is for Pennsylvania to join the compact, and with her votes Rockefeller again winds up in third position, with two votes more than Wallace, and is again put forth to the House as a compromise candidate satisfactory to both parties.
This is not preposterous. New York and Pennsylvania laws do not punish electors of their states for voting as they wish; they are not constitutionally bound by election results, and ifthey preferred Rockefeller to the alternatives, they could have voted for him, with the results as indicated. There may be readers who would have preferred Rockefeller to either of the two major candidates, but no man should be elevated to the Presidency by a trick of this nature. The simple way to protect ourselves is to revise our election laws.
The second strange proposal preoccupied me from the moment I thought of becoming an elector, and I am surprised that not more critics of our system have been aware of its possibility. Article II of the Constitution first enunciated a principle which has never been altered. It consists of two clearly worded statements: The electors “shall make a List of all the Persons voted for … and transmit sealed … to the President of the Senate.” If the vote is inconclusive, “then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot.” In the Twelfth Amendment the two words
immediately choose
were reversed as a matter of style, but the basic law remained the same.
The question is: to which Congress does the list of electoral votes go, the old one or the new? And which House is entitled to do the choosing? Prior to the election I showed this provision to the fifty men and women of whom I spoke earlier and asked them what the words meant. Half said, “Of course it means the Congress in being now”—that is, the 90th; the other half said with equal conviction, “Naturally it means the incoming Congress”—that is, the 91st. The question has never been adjudicated; only custom, written into law in 1934, has determined that it should be the incoming Congress
Similar Books
