vote as the sole determinant for Presidential elections, is that correct?

Mr. DATT. That is correct. We have always been opposed to the use of the popular vote.

Senator THURMOND. As I understand it, you all took the position that this would encourage the formation of splinter parties as one reason for taking that position.

Mr. DATT. That has been one of our major concerns in terms of that.

Senator THURMOND. And another reason, as I understand it, is that to implement the direct election plan would cause direct intervention into the voter qualification, eligibility requirements and voting standards established by the several States.

Mr. DATT. Yes, sir. For years, we in agriculture have probably represented the group who feels strongest about maintaining State and local governments and maintaining power in State and local governments. We think that the direct popular approach would lead to substantial Federal intervention in the whole election process, and our folks do not support that point of view.

Senator THURMOND. I want to commend the Farm Bureau, generally, on their position of opposition to Federal intervention. In other words, you believe in the local areas, the counties and the States handling their problems, generally.

Mr. DATT. That has been the philosophy of the Farm Bureau in all the years I have been with it, and it is that today.

Senator THURMOND. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that States will fix voting qualifications, and if this direct amendment should pass, it could lead to more direct intervention, and maybe an amendment to that provision of the Constitution, could it not?

Mr. DATT. Well, I think it is inevitable, because I do not see how you would insure an accurate election without having some Federal involvement to make sure that that occurred. I think that would almost be a direct result of it.

Senator THURMOND. I notice that mention was made of the Chamber of Commerce favoring the direct plan. In fact they favor either the direct plan or the district plan. Are you familiar with that?

Mr. DATT. No, I am not familiar with the recent position of the Chamber.

Senator THURMOND. Now, most of the farmers reside in the rural areas, do they not?

Mr. DATT. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. How do you respond to the argument that in direct elections, the influence in Presidential Elections would be greater for the people in rural areas? I believe that that position was taken by the Farmers Union representative and may have been taken by some others.

Mr. DATT. Well, we do not agree with that and, of course, we have disagreed with the Farmers Union before and probably will disagree with them in the future. Their attitude toward government and involvement of government over the years has been much different than ours.

We think that as you go the route of the direct popular vote, you then go the route of having an effective, pure democracy. Our people have supported the representative republic form of government.

Senator THURMOND. Now, to make sure there is no mistake as to your testimony, do you feel that with direct elections, the small, less populous States would receive the same or less attention than is received with the present system?

Mr. DATT. I am confident that they would; that is simply because of where the voters are. As Senator Bayh and I indicated in our discussion, no politician in his right mind is going to go someplace where the votes are not, and the votes are obviously in the larger States.

Senator THURMOND. If the direct election system should be passed, then you would abolish that theory of Federalism which recognizes the State, as well as the votes by the people, would you not?

Mr. DATT. Well, I think that is correct.

Senator THURMOND. And you would also de-emphasize somewhat the strength and power of the States.

Mr. DATT. Well, they simply become accounting mechanisms under a direct popular approach; that is all their function is. Senator THURMOND. In fact, does that not really change the structure of government in this country, if you have a direct vote of the people?

Mr. DATT. Yes, sir, and I think that is as much of our conern on this issue as anything; that you are changing the basic structure of government, as it was founded or set up by our Founding Fathers. It is not so much whether farmers are going to be helped or hurt, as whether you are going to change the basic system of local and State and Federal Government, and their relationship to each other.

Senator THURMOND. And if this plan should be adopted, might not some movement come along to elect members of Congress in a similar way, whereas now each State, regardless of size, is allotted two Senators?

Mr. DATT. I think that is inevitable. I testified before this committee on the one-man, one-vote Dirksen amendment and, of course, we lost in terms of what we were interested in. Many of the things that we said were going to happen have occurred, as far as what has occurred since we have gone to the straight one-man, onevote system.

Senator THURMOND. Well, I appreciate your being here, Mr. Datt, and I want to tell you that I also appreciate the splendid philosophy of the Farm Bureau and what it has stood for throughout the years. You and your organization are to be highly commended for this philosophy, and I hope you will continue to stand by this philosophy in order that we may strengthen our system of constitutional government which embraces within it the Federal system as we now have it. Thank you very much for your appearance here today.

Mr. DATT. Thank you, Senator.

Senator BAYH. I suppose that the one official in our States that has the greatest continuous involvement with our farmers would be-what, the Commissioner of Agriculture, or somebody like that? Mr. DATT. It would be the president of the State Farm Bureau, because he is the one who, in our case in Indiana, represents more farmers. We do not view the role of the Commissioner of Agriculture as one to represent farmers. That is our function in life. So the one that would have more contact with more farmers in Indiana would be the State Farm Bureau president.

Senator BAYH. I wish we could elect Senators in the State of Indiana that way. I would just sort of appoint myself as a spokesman for people.

Mr. DATT. Well, the president of the State Farm Bureau is elected by delegates from the county farm bureaus. You are familiar with the system.

Senator BAYH. Yes, I am, but I have never had a president of a State Farm Bureau suggest that he was elected in a democratic election, where you go to the polls and are elected by all of the members of your organization. That is not the way the president of the Farm Bureau in Indiana is elected. He is elected as if you were choosing a president from the House of Representatives, in a parliamentary system.

Mr. DATT. No. The president of the Indiana Farm Bureau is elected by delegates who represent the county farm bureau, which is very similar to what we use in the present Electoral College system in some respects.

Senator BAYH. We appreciate your open-mindedness. [Laughter.] I was going to observe that as far as elected officials are concerned, a Commissioner of Agriculture, at least from a public official standpoint, deals more with the farmer's business than any other State officer and there are some States that elect Commissioners of Agriculture.

Mr. DATT. One of the things about Indiana is that they do not have a Commissioner of Agriculture in Indiana.

Senator BAYH. I am very familiar with that, but they do have in Texas, Florida, and some other places, where that person runs

Mr. DATT. I think you are about the last of the Mohicans on that score, Senator. We did not have one from Maryland for years, and we finally now have one. I think Indiana is probably about the last. Senator BAYH. I would not want to defend that. In fact, I had not thought about it, but it is obvious that we do not have one. There are a number of States that choose them by election, are there not? Mr. DATT. That is correct.

Senator BAYH. On the local level, I suppose that those of us who have farms are more affected by the actions of the county commissioners and the county councils than any other officials in our area. I would just observe that those officials are chosen by a direct popular vote.

Mr. DATT. And that was the way our Founding Fathers chose to set up the system of local government, State government, and Federal Government. For many, many years, my father served as a township commissioner, and that is how I got into this, because he had to run quite frequently himself and I used to go to meetings with him.

Senator BAYH. Thank you very much, Mr. Datt.

Mr. DATT. Thank you. I will get together with your staff and we will design our discussion sheet for your county and the other county farm bureaus in Indiana.

Senator BAYH. Let us see what we can do to find out what the members really feel on this. I do not know whether you can do it or not, but it would be interesting; I would like to know.

We will recess until Tuesday at 2 p.m.; my thanks to all of you. [The American Farm Bureau Federation's statement follows:] STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION: PRESENTED BY JOHN C. DATT, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON OFFICE

We appreciate this opportunity to present the views of the American Farm Bureau Federation on S.J. Res. 28, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President of the United States.

Farm Bureau is the largest general farm organization in the United States, with member state organizations in 49 states and Puerto Rico. Farm Bureau is financed by dues paid voluntarily by its members. Our membership totals 3,076,867 families who are members of county Farm Bureaus organized in 2,840 counties of this country's 3,104 counties.

Policies of Farm Bureau are determined through extensive membership participation which involves study, discussion, and action by majority vote of members or their delegates on resolutions at local, county, state, and national meetings.

The comments we make today with respect to revision of the Constitution's provisions for the election of the President and Vice President were developed through this process. Delegates to our 1979 annual meeting, adopted the following policy on Electoral College reform:

"We favor a Constitutional amendment to provide that two of the Presidential electors to which each state shall be entitled shall be elected on a statewide basis and that the remainder of such electors shall be elected from Congressional districts. The proposed amendment should provide that all electors be mandated to cast their Presidential votes as did a plurality of the voters in their respective districts or states.

"We oppose proposals to use the popular vote as the sole determinant of Presidential elections.'

This Subcommittee is considering a proposal calling for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President of the United States. Farm Bureau policy opposes such legislation.

The direct popular election of the President and Vice President would encourage the formation of splinter parties. Under the direct plan, any candidate placed on the ballot no matter how few his supporters-would appear in the national totals as receiving those votes cast for him. Thus, the candidates of any number of political groups could justify-at least to themselves and their followers-campaigning in national elections. This is now the case in several Western European nations where direct elections have resulted in a proliferation of splinter parties.

Such a plan would be destructive of our federal form of government. It would be a first step in a process, the logical extension of which would eventually abolish state representation in the Senate and let population determine the apportionment of the members of both houses. The duality of our government, state and federal, has made it unique in history. It is, in our conviction, the single greatest strength that sets us apart from the rest of the world. We want to keep it.

Implementation of the direct election plan would make inevitable the direct intervention of Congress into the voter qualifications, eligibility requirements and voting standards established by the several states.

Another flaw in the direct election plan is that a recount would be extremely difficult and involved. In an election which resulted in two candidates receiving almost identical popular vote totals, it is possible that many suits would be filed and contested in the courts, to such an extent that Congress might be unable to certify a winner before Inauguration Day.

A Constitutional amendment providing for direct election would have to be ratified by 38 of the 50 states to become effective. Farm Bureau members in 49 states

will work actively against state ratification of such an amendment, if ever it is sent to the states for ratification.

We thank you for this opportunity to present the recommendations of Farm Bureau members on this fundamental issue.

[Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at 2 p.m., Tuesday, April 3, 1979.]