January 6, 1969
Page 244
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Tennessee is persuaded that the presidential elector duly chosen is an independent agent. The senior Senator from Tennessee does not recognize the degree of independence of agency in this regard; but, out of respect for the distinguished Senator from Maine, and out of appreciation for the services he is rendering in dramatizing the need for constitutional change, I would like to inquire of the Senator from Maine if he would have some views to rebut the views given by the senior Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I shall not engage in further arguments on the substance of this question. I think an important purpose may have been served. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky has referred to it.
I hope that this has been a useful exercise. I hope that all of us have a better understanding of the nature and dimensions of the problem that is involved; and I hope that, whatever the result, this exercise will be a stimulus to the kind of electoral reform we should be considering.
I am somewhat pessimistic about such reform because over 500 such resolutions have been introduced in the history of the country, and none of them has gotten anywhere. That is one reason why I took this previously unused method of raising the issue. I hope we have stimulated this forum with that exercise.
Let me point out, before closing, that whether we accept the challenge or defeat it, we will be setting a precedent.
In my judgment, defeating the challenge means a further dilution of the tradition which was almost unchallenged until 1948 -- the tradition that electors elected on a party slate shall honor their party's candidate for President. Until 1948 that was an almost unbroken and unchallenged tradition.
Since that time, there have been three or four instances of the maverick or faithless elector, so called. Then in this election, as in the previous one, there was the suggestion that the electors ought to be organized to frustrate the will of the electorate.
After this long historic period of commitment by electors to their parties' candidates -- if we defeat this challenge today, we will further undermine that responsibility, and encourage the development, the maneuverability, and the flexibility of presidential electors, with kinds of consequences that ought to give us pause. That would be, I think, the effect of defeating the challenge. Supporting the challenge, I think, would tighten up, or at least tend to tighten up, the electoral process, until such time as we reform it, and reduce the risks to which I have referred and which trouble the distinguished Senator from Kentucky.
Having spelled out the issue as best I could today, with these limitations of debate, I think I have said as much as I should, and perhaps more; and I thank my colleagues for what I think has been excellent attention to this issue, and deep concern over its implications.