which receives the electoral count and the incoming House that electsthe President in case of deadlock. Any Congress has full authority to change that law.
In this ambiguity, suppose that in the November, 1968, election the results had been inconclusive and, furthermore, that the House had switched from the Democratic majority in the 90th Congress to a Republican majority in the 91st. It would have been simple and legal for a disgruntled President Johnson, as soon as he saw what the alignments were, to summon a special session of the old Democratic Congress for the purpose of revoking the law of 1934 and establishing an earlier date for counting the electoral vote. By this simple device the votes of the Electoral College would have been delivered to the lame-duck Congress and certified by it, whereupon the Democratic House could have proceeded to “choose immediately” Hubert Humphrey as President.
I grant that it would have been unwise for President Johnson to attempt this; I grant that it would have been a cynical attack upon our system thus to force upon us a President we might not have wanted; and I grant that Republicans in the Senate might have filibustered throughout December to repel the circumvention. But I also grant that under our present laws the effort would have been legal. I can easily foresee emergency situations in which this tactic could be used against the general welfare and the wishes of the people. It can easily be forestalled by a simple declaration in the next amendment as to which Congress has the authority.
The point that must be stressed in any evaluation of our present system is that it is founded partly on the Constitution, mainly on inherited custom. There is no reason why weshould not change the latter if it no longer serves us; nor is there any reason why we should not change the constitutional framework too, if it is proving faulty. I think we misuse patriotism if we fall back upon it as a reason for rejecting change in our Constitution, and I thank Neal R. Peirce for citing in his excellent book
The People’s President
, James Madison’s confession on the matter we are discussing: “The difficulty of finding an unexceptionable process for appointing the Executive Organ of a Government such as that of the U.S., was deeply felt by the Convention; and as the final arrangement took place in the latter stages of the session, it was not exempt from a degree of the hurrying influence produced by fatigue and impatience in all such bodies; tho’ the degree was much less than usually prevails in them.” * The convention was nodding when it approved some of the provisions in the great compromise, and they should be corrected.
* Many subjects dealt with in this essay are developed in much greater detail in Peirce’s
The People’s President
(New York, Simon and Schuster, 1968), which reaches certain conclusions contrary to mine.
IV
CERTAIN SENSIBLE PROPOSALS
It must be apparent to any serious student of our political system, and to even the most casual voter who has the best interests of his nation at heart, that we ought to take steps immediately to abolish both the Electoral College and the choosing of Presidents by the House of Representatives. On these two points there appears to be unanimity, but as to what we should do after these corrections have been made, there is considerable difference of honest opinion, and I should now like to explore both the proposals and the opinions, masking, if I can, my own preferences, which will be stated later.
But before I proceed I must put forth certain fundamental principles which underlie anything I have to say about government,for these convictions, gathered for the most part from the writings and experiences of our Founding Fathers, have served me as guidelines through all my thinking on politics, both in this nation and in the others in which I have worked.
I apologize for the intrusion of certain personal references. I write not as an author
In this ambiguity, suppose that in the November, 1968, election the results had been inconclusive and, furthermore, that the House had switched from the Democratic majority in the 90th Congress to a Republican majority in the 91st. It would have been simple and legal for a disgruntled President Johnson, as soon as he saw what the alignments were, to summon a special session of the old Democratic Congress for the purpose of revoking the law of 1934 and establishing an earlier date for counting the electoral vote. By this simple device the votes of the Electoral College would have been delivered to the lame-duck Congress and certified by it, whereupon the Democratic House could have proceeded to “choose immediately” Hubert Humphrey as President.
I grant that it would have been unwise for President Johnson to attempt this; I grant that it would have been a cynical attack upon our system thus to force upon us a President we might not have wanted; and I grant that Republicans in the Senate might have filibustered throughout December to repel the circumvention. But I also grant that under our present laws the effort would have been legal. I can easily foresee emergency situations in which this tactic could be used against the general welfare and the wishes of the people. It can easily be forestalled by a simple declaration in the next amendment as to which Congress has the authority.
The point that must be stressed in any evaluation of our present system is that it is founded partly on the Constitution, mainly on inherited custom. There is no reason why weshould not change the latter if it no longer serves us; nor is there any reason why we should not change the constitutional framework too, if it is proving faulty. I think we misuse patriotism if we fall back upon it as a reason for rejecting change in our Constitution, and I thank Neal R. Peirce for citing in his excellent book
The People’s President
, James Madison’s confession on the matter we are discussing: “The difficulty of finding an unexceptionable process for appointing the Executive Organ of a Government such as that of the U.S., was deeply felt by the Convention; and as the final arrangement took place in the latter stages of the session, it was not exempt from a degree of the hurrying influence produced by fatigue and impatience in all such bodies; tho’ the degree was much less than usually prevails in them.” * The convention was nodding when it approved some of the provisions in the great compromise, and they should be corrected.
* Many subjects dealt with in this essay are developed in much greater detail in Peirce’s
The People’s President
(New York, Simon and Schuster, 1968), which reaches certain conclusions contrary to mine.
IV
CERTAIN SENSIBLE PROPOSALS
It must be apparent to any serious student of our political system, and to even the most casual voter who has the best interests of his nation at heart, that we ought to take steps immediately to abolish both the Electoral College and the choosing of Presidents by the House of Representatives. On these two points there appears to be unanimity, but as to what we should do after these corrections have been made, there is considerable difference of honest opinion, and I should now like to explore both the proposals and the opinions, masking, if I can, my own preferences, which will be stated later.
But before I proceed I must put forth certain fundamental principles which underlie anything I have to say about government,for these convictions, gathered for the most part from the writings and experiences of our Founding Fathers, have served me as guidelines through all my thinking on politics, both in this nation and in the others in which I have worked.
I apologize for the intrusion of certain personal references. I write not as an author
Similar Books
