The Constitution: How Much Power?

Fearful of popular misrule yet mistrustful of an autocratic executive, the framers of the Constitution did their best to preclude either extreme. They 1) devised the Electoral College so that wiser heads than the people's would choose the President, and 2) limited Representatives to two-year terms so that the House would be responsive and responsible to the will of the voter. If neither excess is inconceivable today, neither safeguard is wholly necessary or suitable to contemporary America. Last week, as he promised in his State of the Union address, Lyndon Johnson asked Congress to amend the Constitution so as to abolish the Electoral College and give Representatives four-year terms.

The Electoral College system showed serious flaws almost from the beginning. With the rise of political parties in the 1790s, it became an undemocratic anachronism by which three candidates who had run second in the popular election actually became President.* While Congress has considered dozens of proposals for reform, the system has remained basically intact since the Twelfth Amendment, ratified in 1804, prescribed separate electoral votes for President and Vice President.

Fair Formula. In phrases that echoed those of Andrew Jackson, who demanded reform of the presidential-election process in eight successive messages to Congress, Johnson urged elimination of "several major defects"—notably the electors' theoretical right to disregard the winning candidate's popular majority. They can either elect someone who is not even a candidate or, in a close election, fail to give any nominee a majority and so put the election up to the House of Representatives. The present system provides that if the choice goes to the House, each state delegation has a single vote. Johnson's proposal would change this provision to include the Senate and to give each member of Congress one vote. In case of the death of the President-elect, the Vice President-elect would be inaugurated in his place.

Johnson's formula would not alter the traditional unit-rule system by which a candidate gets all of a state's electoral vote regardless of how small his popular plurality. Thus a nominee could still conceivably get a majority of the nationwide popular vote and yet lose the election. However, since it would make modest improvements without involving drastic change, there is a fair chance that this amendment will win the two-thirds majorities in Congress necessary to send it to the states for ratification.

Senate Challenge. By contrast, the President's recommendation for doubling the terms of Representatives would constitute a more radical departure, and thus has slimmer prospects of passage. For obvious reasons, it commands considerable support in the House, especially among junior members and those from swing districts, who object that under the present system a member has barely taken his seat before he must begin thinking of reelection. As congressional sessions grow longer, bills more numerous, issues more complex, Representatives argue that they are needlessly distracted from their proper business of lawmaking.