September 17, 1970.
Page 32356
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, no issue in the history of this Nation has been studied and debated as extensively and as frequently as the issue of electoral reform. End on end, the pile of literature
dealing with the subject could reach across the Nation.
But the results that have emerged from years of national debate and tons of expert study could hardly reach across this Chamber.
It was no easier for those who drafted the Constitution. The debate over the process through which a President was to be elected was, as one of the delegates noted: "The most difficult facing the Convention."
The issue was resolved only after complicated compromises that reconciled the competing power interests of the period. There was no mysticism binding the system that finally emerged. There was no eternal sanctity attached to the electoral college. No delegate considered it perfect or foolproof. It was exactly what it was intended to be: A compromise that could receive enough support to be approved by the constitutional convention. And as many compromises do, the system has worked reasonably well for a reasonable period of time.
We would make a mistake to suggest that the electoral college has been a failure. Remarkably and with reasonable consistency, the system invented in 1787, with one or two minor failures along the way, has done an effective job.
But the difference between building a democracy and maintaining one is the degree to which responsible officials will improve institutions that reveal flaws before calamity strikes.
The present electoral system suffers at least three basic flaws that jeopardize the proper functioning of the Nation's political process. These include:
First. The havoc that can be caused by the fickle behavior of unpledged electors;
Second. The inadequacy of national election machinery that cannot guarantee a fair and smooth election result; and
Third. The potential danger of a contingent election where a handful of Members in the House of Representatives representing less than 25 percent of the population could completely stifle or obscure the election process.
Thus far none of those weaknesses has torn the Nation apart. However, they did come close:
In 1800, it took the House 32 ballots and threats of civil war and anarchy to finally choose Thomas Jefferson over Aaron Burr.
In 1876, it took a Presidential commission loaded with political intrigue to finally choose a President.
On three occasions the man who received the fewest votes won the Presidency.
On other occasions the mere shift of a few thousand votes in one or two States would have jeopardized the result and thrown the Nation into political chaos.
Why we tolerate such a condition is hard to conceive. If we are afraid to break with the past, we are shortsighted. If we cannot agree on alternatives, we are hardheaded.
No one can convince me that this body is not capable of improving our national institutions in such a way as to satisfy the needs and desires of the people of our Nation. And those desires today demand that we abolish the electoral system and replace it with a direct election of the President.
Forget complicated alternatives with formulas that favor small or large States, urban or rural blocks, conservative or liberal interests.
The time has come to stop quibbling – to stop debating proposed plans that favor North or South – district plans that favor Republicans or Democrats.
The people of this Nation want an election process that is fair. They want a system that offers each citizen one vote and lets each citizen cast that vote directly and unequivocally for the man he thinks should lead the Nation. The American citizen no longer needs middlemen casting votes for him. He no longer needs protection from his passions by "wise electors." Hawks, doves, hard hats or soft hats, the American voter can think for himself and stand on his own two feet.
When all the arguing is done and the shouting and debating diminishes, only one system offers that clear opportunity: direct election of the President.
It is simple. It is clean.
It is practical.
It has passed the House of Representatives. It has received the broadest possible support from a cross current of national interest groups. It has, off and on, had the support of the President of the United States.
What more inducement does this body need to act? The details dealing with runoffs to prevent minority victories or to safeguard a reasonable result, are legislative tactics that can be compromised by men of good will.
So let us stop the flow of words. Let us stop the bickering. Let us stop the regional hem and haw, the political twists and turns, and let us emerge from this debate with a constitutional amendment that offers the citizens of America a chance to vote directly for their President.
Then let the people and the States determine whether Congress has acted wisely. If they reject our proposal, we can return to our Chambers and begin again.
But now, let us act. And let us act fairly and consistently with our belief that democracy means trusting people not most of the time, but all of the time.