Birch-Celler Amendment Enacted

I'm not sure how to do this exactly. But what would the consequences have been had the Birch-Celler amendment passed in the Senate and been enacted? Would 1968 is the last election under the electoral College system? Or would enactment have taken so long as to preserve the old system through 1972? In any event how would subsequent campaigns have unfolded under a popular vote system? Would candidates campaign differently? How would election night be covered without the race being focused on electoral math. Would state by state results still be covered or would there just be coverage of the fluctuating popular vote tally? Would no electoral college impact how subsequent elections are seen even if they have similar results? In short if the drive to kill the electoral college in 1969 was successful what else would change?
 
I suppose this could actually pass if there's another controversial election in 1972 and its brought up again.
 
I suppose this could actually pass if there's another controversial election in 1972 and its brought up again.

Apparently the vote in the Senate for cloture (which would have ended the filibuster preventing passage) fell just six votes short of the required 60-vote majority, after President Nixon, who had supported the act, didn't bother to personally appeal to individual senators. If Nixon changes his mind and swings six GOP senators, the amendment passes.

Then it would have gone to the states.
On October 8, 1969, the New York Times reported that 30 state legislatures were "either certain or likely to approve a constitutional amendment embodying the direct election plan if it passes its final Congressional test in the Senate." Ratification of 38 state legislatures would have been needed for adoption. The paper also reported that 6 other states had yet to state a preference, 6 were leaning toward opposition and 8 were solidly opposed.[120]

If the 6 neutrals can be persuaded to join, only two more states from the 'lean no' column need to change their mind.


I think what made this proposal have such bipartisan support was the feeling that the southern blue dogs would keep trying to deadlock the electoral college in order to extract concessions. EDIT: As such, I think it needs to happen before 1972

Also, the biggest early change I can see would be in the 1992 election, where Ross Perot voters would turn out much harder than usual in the hopes of making it to the run-off (as foreseen by the Bayh-Celler Amendment). This might have dropped Clinton by at least 3%, and with nobody having gotten 40%, there would have been a run-off.
 
Last edited:
There's also the possibility of D.C. statehood in the 1970's if you remove the electoral college. There was a failed amendment in the 1970's that would have overturned the 23rd amendment and granted D.C. representation in Congress.

The Bayh-Celler amendment would have effectively overturned the 23rd amendment-which in turn could make D.C. statehood possible without an amendment. If there is not an electoral College by definition D.C. can't have electoral votes. Yes-constitutionally there has to be a Federal District-but Congress as far as I am aware can alter the territorial limits of the District.

One option that's been proposed is to take the vast majority of Washington D.C. out of the District and allow that area to enter as a state. Proponents argue that this would not require an amendment per se.

However the 23rd amendment would mean that the remaining Federal District would still have electoral votes-even if no one lived there but the President.

With Bayh-Celler the 23rd amendment is repealed for all intents and purposes. If there was a 2/3 majority in Congress in favor of giving Washington D.C. representation in Congress-and if there might be a way of accomplishing that end without enacting an amendment-and if Congressional margins remain the same-then D.C. residents will elect members of Congress and Senators after 1978.

In turn that would alter the margins in the Senate-which would always have one more Democratic Senator compared with historical reality. Not sure what impact that has in the near term.
 
Al Gore would have been president under the terms of it and Perot may have done better in '92. He may not have dropped out and than come back in if he thought he could force a runoff.
 
But what would the consequences have been had the Birch-Celler amendment passed in the Senate and been enacted?
Oops!
Bayh–Celler Amendment
Hard to search for info if you don't have the correct name.

See previous threads such as

AHC: Destroy the Electoral College!
Getting rid of the Electoral College in 1969
WI: Bayh-Celler Amendment ratified.


While it passed overwhelmingly in the House, and came close in the Senate, could it pass the required 3/4 of states? It seems somewhat unlikely to me.

 
Top