No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Reform of the Electoral System
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
Extract
Current proposals for reform of the electoral college system are embodied in three plans which appear to be designed to enable the “conservatives” to elect a President of the United States. Since 1932, the present electoral college system has compelled both parties to nominate presidential candidates who advocate policies devised to win the votes of conscious ethnic, religious, and economic groups in metropolitan centers, where these minorities hold a balance of power in populous states controlling large blocs of electoral votes. Consequently, all recent presidential candidates have supported social security, collective bargaining, and civil rights legislation. An inspection of congressional roll calls discloses the rather obvious fact that a number of Republicans and southern Democrats hardly approve of these and other so-called Fair Deal measures.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1952
References
1 See Underbill, John and Williams, J. Harvie, Liberty and the Republic (Washington, 1952)Google Scholar, Appendix IV, a tabulation of congressional votes in which a, majority of Republicans and southern Democrats defeated Administration measures from 1941 to 1951.
2 New York Times, 04 11, 1951 (15:1), 09 18, 1951 (17:1), 09 23, 1951 (IV, 9:5), and 09 24, 1951 (19:3)Google Scholar. Senator Mundt suggests that the Republicans nominate a candidate whom southern conservatives will support and, perhaps, give the vice-presidential nomination to a southern Democrat. The ticket would have a Republican label in the North and a State Democratic label in the South. The Senator views this as merely the prelude to a major party realignment, from which would emerge a frankly conservative party supported by northern Republicans and southern Democrats. United States News and World Report, 04 27, 1951, p. 36, and 08 3, 1951, pp. 22–28.Google Scholar
3 See the author's tabulations, Hearings on H. J. Res. 11…, House Committee on the Judiciary, 82d Cong., 1st sess., p. 268.Google Scholar
4 The metropolitan counties are as follows: Los Angeles and San Francisco, California; Cook (Chicago), Illinois; Baltimore City, Maryland; Suffolk (Boston), Massachusetts; Wayne (Detroit), Michigan; Hennepin (Minneapolis), Minnesota; St. Louis City, Missouri; Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, Richmond (New York City) and Erie (Buffalo), New York; Cuyahoga (Cleveland), Ohio; Allegheny (Pittsburgh) and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. See Table II, ibid., p. 269.
5 Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, and Washington. See Table III, ibid., p. 269.
6 Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, New York, and Oregon. Ibid., p. 270.
7 Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont. Table IV, ibid., p. 270.
8 Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Table V, ibid., p. 270.
9 S. J. Res. 33Google Scholar and H. J. Res 205Google Scholar, both 82d Cong., 1st sess.
10 See the author's tabulations of the gain or loss of each state under nation-wide popular vote in 1948, Hearings, op. cit., p. 285.Google Scholar
11 S. Rept. 594Google Scholar and H. Rept. 1199Google Scholar, both 82d Cong., 1st sess.
12 S. J. Res. 52Google Scholar and H. J. Res. 19Google Scholar; see also H. J. Res. 14Google Scholar, H. J. Res. 89Google Scholar, H. J. Res. 90Google Scholar, and H. J. Res. 109Google Scholar, all 82d Cong., 1st sess.
13 The author's calculations based on compilations made by the Clerk of the House, Statistics of the Presidential … Election of November 2, 1948, p. 48.Google Scholar
14 The author's calculations based on the compilations of the Clerk of the House, op. cit., pp. 48–49.
15 Calculations made by the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress, Hearings on H. J. Res. 2, House Committee on the Judiciary, 81st Cong., 1st sess., p. 99.Google Scholar
16 The author's calculations based on the computations of the Legislative Reference Service, ibid., p. 99.
17 The calculations in Table II are the author's and are based on the following sources: Stanwood, Edward, A History of the Presidency (Boston, 1904), Vol. I, pp. 417, 448Google Scholar; and the Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1912 (pp. 727–735), 1917 (pp. 698, 702), 1920 (pp. 758, 762), 1924 (pp. 141–142), 1928 (pp. 166–167), 1933 (pp. 155–156), 1937 (pp. 159–160), 1941 (pp. 174–175), 1944–1945 (pp. 251, 253)Google Scholar, and compilations of the 1948 statistics made by die Clerk of the House, op. cit., pp. 48–49.
“Southern Solidarity” is an average percentage of the popular vote polled by Democrats in the southern states, weighting each state according to its electoral vote. This method must be used because it makes a great difference whether the Democrats poll 95 percent of the popular vote in a state with three or twenty-three electoral votes. The rank-difference coefficient of correlation between southern solidarity and Democratic advantage under H. J. Res. 19Google Scholar is .680.
18 Popular participation in the South compared to that in other states is a relation between the percent of the national popular vote polled in the South and the percent of the total electoral vote cast by the South. Popular participation in the South for 1924, for example, was measured as 36.63 percent, which means that, if che election had been determined by the nation-wide popular vote regardless of state lines, the South would have had only 36.63 percent of the power she actually had in choosing the President. The rank-difference coefficient of correlation between Democratic advantage under H. J. Res. 19Google Scholar and popular participation in the South is negative .587.
The eleven southern states are: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
19 The author's calculations based on Robinson, Edgar Eugene's statistics, op. cit., pp. 42–46Google Scholar. The popular vote in this hypothetical case is as follows: Roosevelt, 41.7%; Hoover, 55.4%; others, 2.4%.
20 The author's calculation based on the election returns in the Statistical Abstract of the United States 1924, pp. 141–142Google Scholar. The popular vote in this hypothetical case is as follows: Coolidge, 46.3%; Davis, 36.7%; others, 17%. If the third-party vote were cast for Republican and Democratic candidates, the popular vote would be as follows: Coolidge, 54.8%; Davis, 45.2%.
for a more detailed statistical analysis of the Lodge-Gossett plan, see Silva, Ruth C., “The Lodge Gossett Resolution,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 44, pp. 86–99 (03, 1950).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 Hearings on S. J. Res. 2, Senate Committee on Judiciary, 81st Cong., 1st sess., p. 88.Google Scholar
22 Ibid., pp. 819, 71–90; Cong. Rec. (daily), Vol. 95, pp. 2946–2951 (03 22, 1949).Google Scholar
23 See the minority report on H. J. Res. 19, H. Rept. 1199, 82d Cong., 1st sess., pp. 32–34.Google Scholar
24 Binkley, Wilfred E., American Political Parties (New York, 1943), p. 317.Google Scholar
25 See n. 21, supra.
26 Statistical Abstract of the United States 1943, pp. 234, 237Google Scholar; ibid., 194-445, pp. 251, 257.
27 For example, Senator Stennis, John C. of Mississippi, Hearings on S. J. Res. 2, op. cit., p. 31.Google Scholar
28 For example, Senator Clyde R, Hoey of North Carolina, ibid., p. 36; and also Ed Gossett's remarks concerning the Negro, Jewish, and organized labor vote in New York City, Cong. Rec. (daily), Vol. 96, pp. 10572–10587 (07 17, 1950)Google Scholar. See especially Hearings on H. J. Res. 11 …, op. cit., pp. 305–337.Google Scholar
29 March 12, 1948.
30 Oct. 14, 1948. For similar statements from other southern newspapers, see Hearings on H. J. Res. 2, op. cit., pp. 199–279.Google Scholar
31 H. J. Res. II, 82d Cong., 1st sess.
32 Tabulations are the author's and are based on statistics contained in Statement of the Vote for President …, General Election, Tuesday, November 2, 1948, Common wealth of Virginia, pp. 2–4.Google Scholar
33 The distribution of the electoral vote under the Coudert plan Compared to that actually won in the last nine elections is as follows:
The reason for listing some electoral votes as “uncertain” is as follows: Tabulation of the electoral vote under the Coudert formula involves determining which counties, cities, wards, and precincts were in each congressional district on the date of the election in question. Then one can proceed to tabulate the popular vote cast for presidential electors in each district. The actual tabulation involves a tremendous amount of laborious and detailed work. For example, tabulation of the presidential vote in the ten congressional districts of Los Angeles County requires dealing with the election returns for 6,500 separate precincts. Some of the necessary statistics can be secured in printed form, some may be obtained by microfilming official records but some can be acquired only by sending a researcher to the proper city or county office. This is an expensive proposition and the author's research funds were exhausted before the tabulations were finished.
The tabulations completed to date were made possible by a grant from The Pennsylvania State College Research Council and by assistance from the Library of Congress and from a number of city and county election boards. The “uncertain” votes are largely those involved in metropolitan counties such as Cook County, Illinois. For a more detailed tabulation, see Hearings on H. J. Res. 11 …, op. cit., pp. 274–283.Google Scholar
34 See note 4, supra for a list of these states.