HEAD OFFICE

7160 CLARK ST.

MONTREAL 327, CANADA

TEL. (514) 274-3655

CABLES: PHIMACO, MONTREAL

Trade Mark Registered

DIRECTORS:

M. M. FINE

B. BLUMENTHAL

PHILIP MANUFACTURING CO.
MANUFACTURERS, IMPORTERS AND EXPORTERS

February 5 1973

Dr. Henry Kissinger,
The State Department
Washington, U.S.A.

Dear Sir:-

I would like to join the countless million of people all over the world, and especially in The United States and Canada, in expressing our thanks and appreciation of your efforts in bringing the war in Viet Nam to a conclusion. I hope and pray that the cease-fire will become an armistice and lead to peace and stability in that troubled part of the world.

As I watched the progress of your talks as reported in the press and on T.V., I felt a great deal of sympathy for the frustration you must have felt during the long period of negotiations with the Vietnamese.

You see, I have been dealing with people in the Orient for more than 10 years. I have been there a dozen times and have concluded business deals in Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea and Red China. I import from them and also sell to Japan.

Even in the best of times, when they were most anxious to sell to Canadians, it was a most frustrating experience trying to get through to them. On the whole I found them to be charming, gentle, soft spoken, friendly, but, oh, so difficult to understand. It took me some time to realize that when they nod their heads, they do not necessarily mean that they agree with you. But when they deal from a position of strength, ie., Red China after they recognized Japan and were no longer interested in dealing with Canada, they became totally unreasonable and found all kinds of reasons to inhibit negotiations and conclude reasnable business arrangements.

May I tell you that it was a fascinating experience watching your interview on CBS TV and listening to the articulate way in which you explained some of the reasoning behind US foreign policy and your lucid comments about your missions and the long term thinking behind them.

continued...................page 2

LINGERIE DÉLICATE

VÊTEMENTS DE BASE DE QUALITÉ
POUR HOMMES ET GARÇONS

FINE QUALITY LINGERIE

MEN'S AND BOYS'
QUALITY UNDERWEAR

PONR HOMMER ET GARCONS
AVENTURES DE BASE DE QUALITE

QUALITY UNDERWEAR
MEN'S AND BOYS.

LIME QUALITY TONGERIE

TONGERIE DELICATE

continued............page 2

comments about your miseraus and the long term thinking behind them. explained some of the reserving behind U2 foreign policy and your interview on CBB TV and flattening to the articulate way in which you May I fell you that it was a fascinating experience watching your arrangements.

Kinda of reasons to поп it negotiations and conclude reasonable business in dealing with Canada, they became totally unreasonable and found all the 'Red China' after they recognized Japan and were no longer interested they they agree with you. But when they deal from a position of strength, realize that when they nod their heads, they do not necessarily mean that friendly, put, oh, so difficult to understand. It took me some time to to them. On the whole I found them to be charming, gentle, soft apoken, to Canadians, it was a most truotrating experience trying to get through Even in the past of time, when they were most anxious to sell from them and also sell to Japan.

Business degle in Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea and Red China. I import more than 10 years. I have been there a dozen times and have concluded You see, I have been dealing with people in the Orient for Vietnamese.

You must have left during the long period of negotiations with the press and on T.V., I left a great deal of sympathy for the tratation As I watched the progress of your talks as reported in the that troubled part of the world.

fire will become an armature and lead to peace and stability in the war in Viet Nam to a conclusion. I hope and try that the cese- expressing our thanks and appreciation of your efforts in bringing over the world, and especially in The United States and Canada, in I would like to join the countless million of people all

Dear Sir:-

Washington, U.S.A.
The State Department
Dr. Henry Klaasen,

February 2 1983

PHILIP MANUFACTURING CO.

CATERER: PHILIPCO, MONTREAL

LEF. (814) 514-3622

MONTREAL 251, CANADA

2160 CLARK ST.

HEAD OFFICE

Trade Work Registered

B. BRUNENHAY
M. M. FINE
DIRECTORS:

HEAD OFFICE

7160 CLARK ST.

MONTREAL 327, CANADA

TEL. (514) 274-3655

CABLES: PHIMACO, MONTREAL

Trade Mark Registered

DIRECTORS:

M. M. FINE

B. BLUMENTHAL

PHILIP MANUFACTURING CO.

Dr. Henry Kissinger

continued........page 2

Somehow, Mr. Nixon did not come across as convincingly when he went on T.V. to announce the cease fire.

It is most reassuring that the President of The United States should have a most powerful adviser and a very impressive human being, such as yourself.

You will doubt be receiving many honours and gifts in the months and years ahead, for the achievement of peace in Indo China, but I doubt if you shall receive anything like the enclosed package.

Plea se accept this as a small token of my personal appreciation for having accomplished an almost impossible task.

I hope that I judged your size correctly, if not please let me know and I will send you a replacement. Incidentally, they are very comfortable to wear and fashionable, too.

With my best wishes for your good health and continuing success in your efforts for the benefit of all mankind, I am,

Sincerely,

M.M.Fine

LINGERIE DÉLICATE

FINE QUALITY LINGERIE

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

ROBERT R. BOWIE, Director
HOLLIS B. CHENERY
LESTER E. GORDON
SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON
SEYMOUR M. LIPSET
THOMAS C. SCHELLING
RAYMOND VERNON

JOSEPH S. NYE, Program Director
LAWRENCE S. FINKELSTEIN, Secretary

6 DIVINITY AVENUE
CAMBRIDGE
MASSACHUSETTS 02138

November 12, 1971

Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs
Department of State
Washington, D. C.

Dear Henry,

I thought you might be interested in the enclosed statement
by a group of international organization scholars meeting in Boston.

FOR RELEASE: SUNDAY A.M., NOVEMBER 14, 1971

Boston, Massachusetts

A group of leading US scholars in the field of international organization, meeting in Boston, urged today that the United States not jeopardize its national self-interest by shortsighted actions crippling the United Nations and other international bodies.

Specifically, the group warned against overreacting to the consequences of the seating of the Peoples Republic of China in the UN and other international agencies. On the contrary, the group argued, this action would give the UN new relevance, even though the Republic of China on Taiwan had been excluded. Pointing out that one reason the United States could not use the UN for assistance in negotiating an end to the Vietnam War was the lack of UN membership of three of the major parties to the conflict, the scholars emphasized the value to the United States and to future world peace of a world organization containing friends and adversaries alike.

As to UN finances, the group pointed out that other nations provide up to approximately seventy percent of the contributions to the United Nations. United States contributions, some of which have been under attack in the Congress, have been generous, but by no means excessive in terms of this country's relative wealth and the importance of its international interests. UN regular and voluntary contributions to the UN's expenditures in 1970 came to only $1.36 per capita, contrasted with $373 for U. S. military expenditures and less in proportion to average per capita income than contributions of many other poorer members of the world body. The U. S. contribution is but a fraction of what Americans spend for cigarettes and tobacco, liquor, or cosmetics, and substantially lower than expenditures of the City of New York for either sanitation or fire protection.

Of course, UN expenditures and finances must be kept under constant review. Expenditures not yielding benefits commensurate with cost should be eliminated. Also, growing prosperity should permit some other countries to carry a greater load.

- 2 -

The group urges that President Nixon give a firm lead at this critical moment in supporting a strengthened UN for such purposes as peacekeeping, particularly in the light of the "Nixon Doctrine" which calls for reduced US unilateral intervention in conflict situations.

Members of the group were (titles given for identification only):

Lincoln P. Bloomfield
Professor of Political Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Daniel S. Cheever, Director
Department of International Affairs
Graduate School of Public and
International Affairs
University of Pittsburgh

Rupert Emerson
Professor of Government
Harvard University

Lawrence S. Finkelstein
Secretary
Center for International Affairs
Harvard University

Leland M. Goodrich
Professor Emeritus
School of International Affairs
Columbia University

H. Field Haviland, Jr.
Professor of International Relations
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy

Elmore Jackson
Vice President for Policy Studies
United Nations Association of the
United States of America

Harold K. Jacobson
Professor of Political Science
University of Michigan

David A. Kay
Associate Professor of Political Science
University of Wisconsin

Robert O. Keohane
Associate Professor of Political Science
Swarthmore College

Lawrence Krause
Senior Fellow
The Brookings Institution

Leon N. Lindberg
Professor of Political Science
University of Wisconsin

Edward Miles
Associate Professor of International
Relations
Graduate School of International Studies
University of Denver

Joseph S. Nye
Professor of Government and Program
Director
Center for International Affairs
Harvard University

Francis O. Wilcox
Dean
School of Advanced International Studies
Johns Hopkins University

Oran R. Young
Center for International Studies
Princeton University

Jewish Chronicle

25 Furnival Street London EC4A 1JT Telephone: 01-405 9252 Telegrams: Jaechron London Telex

March 9 1973

Dr Henry Kissinger
Presidential Adviser for National Security Affairs
White House
Washington DC
USA

Dear Dr Kissinger:

I shall be visiting the United States for two weeks
from April 1 to meet important personalities in
American civic and political life. I should be most
grateful to you if you could grant me an interview
either on or off the record in Washington during my
stay.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

The Organ of British Jewry · Established 1841
Jewish Chronicle Newspaper Ltd.

THE FINANCIAL TIMES

THE FINANCIAL TIMES LTD BRACKEN HOUSE CANNON STREET LONDON EC4P 4BY TELEGRAMS FINANTIMO LONDON TELEX 836341-2 TEL 01-248 8000

1325 E STREET, N.W.,
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
U.S.A. 20004
TEL. 347-8676

EXECUTIVE

FEB-11/F
FEB-13
KISSINGER, HENRY A.

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

April 6 1973

Dear Dr Kissinger,

The new Editor of the London Financial Times, Mr M.H.Fisher, will be in Washington from June 4 to 6 and has asked me to enquire whether he would be able to have a few minutes with you, on an off-the-record basis. If possible, I would very much like to accompany him.

Mr Fisher took over the Editorship of the Financial Times at the beginning of this year, on the retirement of the previous Editor, Sir Gordon Newton.

RECEIVED
APR 6 73

ROGER FISHER
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 02138
617 495-4615

GENERAL

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

April 19, 1973

The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Henry:

I think I want to talk with you about the Middle East. I have kept up my contacts with the Egyptians. I spoke with Mrs. Maier briefly when she was here and had a long discussion a couple of weeks ago with an old friend Shimshon Arad, now Israel's roving ambassador. This week I spent better than an hour at the Soviet Mission to the United Nations in response to an invitation of theirs to discuss the Middle East. They had read some of my suggestions in *Dear Israelis, Dear Arabs* (see especially pages 148-149) and wanted to talk about them. They have suggested that we meet again.

I will be in Washington Wednesday, April 25. Could you by any chance make yourself free for dinner at the Metropolitan Club at 8:00 p.m., or could you otherwise find time in the late afternoon or early evening?

As ever,

RECEIVED

APR 19 1973

CENTRAL FILES

Dear Mr. Kissinger:

Thought it would be of interest to you, to see what the
"Fuerther 8 Uhr Blatt" has to say about you. Nachdem ich auch eine
Zugereiste aus der Theresienstrasse bin, werde ich ziemlich gut
von meinen Eltern ueber das Neueste aus Stadt und Land auf dem Lau-
fendem gehalten.

I was really please when I read this article and once more,
meine Bahauptung meiner Deutschen Bekannten hier in Amerika gegen-
ueber: "Alle gescheiten Leute kommen aus Fuerth" hat sich wieder mal
bewahrheitet.

I would appreciate very much if you could send me a note,
acknowledge wether you got this letter or not. It would be of great
value to me and my children.

Ich wuensche Ihnen auch weiterhin die besten Erfolge im Leben
und verbleibe

P.S. Bei Ihrem naechsten Deutschlandbesuch gruessen Sie mir die alte
Heimat recht schoen.

ELECTING A PRESIDENT

by Frances FitzGerald and Alan Lelchuck

In the next few months a proposal will be offered in the Senate to alter drastically the method of electing a president in the United States. This proposal, sponsored by Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana, would dismantle the present electoral system and replace it with a form of direct popular voting. (It should be immediately understood that there are nine systems for implementing this idea.) Thus far, the criticism of the Bayh proposal has come, in the main, from conservative politicians and from representatives of the rural Southern states. This is unfortunate, since the intrinsic merits or defects of the proposal should be examined without the distortion of partisan political bias. This issue, after all, concerns the very foundations of the American political process. Careful inquiry, stemming from a disinterested pursuit of the truth, is thus of the utmost importance.

While we agree with Senator Bayh and many other concerned Americans that there are serious injustices in the present electoral system which can and must be remedied, we also believe that the political consequences of any proposed change must be spelled out in detail and clearly understood before it becomes a serious alternative. It is our belief that the advocates of the Bayh plan have not mastered this intellectual task. For what they are offering to the American public, in place of a voting system that has worked adequately for 200 years, is a system that will diminish the power of the individual voter and risk the destruction of the two-party system, along with many other advantages of our current political process.

Our purposes here are, first, to examine the defects of the Bayh proposal, and then, second, to suggest an alternative system which will correct most of the injustices of the present system while retaining the present electoral college system and pointing out the reasons that have led many concerned citizens to

2.

press for its reform.

For many, what seems to be the most obvious drawback of the current system is that a president can now be elected even though he receives fewer popular votes than his opponent. Though this has happened cleanly only once in American history (in the election of 1888), it remains a possibility in all close elections because of three features of the electoral college plan. First, because the states act as districts and vote on a winner-take-all basis. That is, a candidate has only to carry a plurality of the state's popular votes in order to carry all of its electoral votes. Second, the apportionment of electoral college votes for each state is based not on the number of votes cast in the state, but rather on the census of its population taken usually some years before the election. Third, each state, regardless of its population, receives two bonus votes in the electoral college that correspond to its two Senate seats.

Now in designing this system the makers of the Constitution were obviously interested not only in the number of votes cast, but in the way those votes were grouped. Their concern was well-founded. For with the current provision for winner-take-all districts, a candidate cannot be elected on the basis of carrying 100% of the votes in any one region of the nation. Thus, under the present system, a candidate has no incentive to win more than 51% of the votes in any state. Furthermore, he cannot be elected without support from either a large and diversified collection of states or from most of the states with the greatest population. The winner-take-all provision acts, then, as effective insurance against a purely regional candidate. Looked at in this light, the fact that a candidate might lose an election while taking fewer total votes than his opponent seems less unjust than it did at first glance. For our goal is to elect a president who, so far as possible, represents all the people, not just the people of a particular region.

A second objection, or group of objections, to the present system concerns the census-base of the electoral college. Here, the representatives of the

3.

large industrial centers make a very persuasive, if not irrefutable, argument.
The census base is, after all, a survivor of an era of property qualifications,
limited franchise and slavery. Under its aegis the non-votes of infants,
criminals, corpses and people who are for one reason or another disenfranchised,
count equally with ballots cast by qualified voters. Obviously this system
gives undue advantage to the citizens of states with a stable population and/or
a low voter turn-out. In the election of 1960 Connecticut and Mississippi
had 8 electoral votes apiece, even though Connecticut voters cast four times as
many ballots as Mississippians. In the final tally one vote cast in Mississippi
was therefore represented by four times as many electoral votes as one cast in
Connecticut. If it is assumed that each voter ought to have an equal influence
in choosing the president, then the census-base system certainly leaves much --
too much-- to be desired.

The third objection is perhaps the most important of all. And an understanding
of it is crucial to an understanding of the principles underlying an ideal
voting system: namely, that the present system favours voters of balanced or
"swing" states over voters from "sure" or one-party states.

The logic of this objection can be most easily appreciated if the electoral
process is looked at in terms of the relationship between the candidate and
the voter. In the close states, such as New York and California, each individual
vote is of great importance to the candidate, since it takes only a small
number of votes to swing such a state and with it the whole election. In these
states the candidate must campaign hard and negotiate for the vote of every
citizen; indeed, he must often go so far as to change his position on
certain issues in order to accomodate them. Because the candidate is uncertain
of the outcome, every voter in such states has a maximum influence upon him.

Uncertainty, then, is basic to an ideal system. In the Soviet Union, by
contrast, every voter has an equal influence on the candidate, but since the
outcome is certain, no voter has any influence at all. The same is to some

4.

extent true for Americans who vote in"sure" or one-party states. Because
in those states the candidate knows he cannot affect the outcome one way
or the other, he has no need to consider the interests of its voters,
majority or minority. The truth of this self-evident but nonetheless
startling fact is clearly demonstrated by the evidence that since the days
of Reconstruction the major party candidates have generally given no more
than a minimum effort to campaigning in the South. Though the Southern
states now show some signs of changing their voting patterns, the possibility
remains that other states may grow as imbalanced and therefore as unrepresented
as the Southern states once were.

## II. The Bayh Proposal

To remedy the ills of the present system Senator Bayh has put forward a
plan for a direct popular election of the president which purports to be
the fairest of all electoral systems. Close scrutiny of Bayh's plan, however, reveals
that the claims for it are based on a serious misunderstanding of the nature
of electoral systems and the way in which they affect the power of the individual
voter. Even Bayh's slogan, "one man, one vote," has a strange ambiguity to
it, for while it means that all individuals have the same voting power, it
also might mean that all individuals had no power at all. Under an ideal
system, or a system approaching the ideal, each individual would have a
maximum as well as an equal influence on the choice of president.

Though Senator Bayh's plan would seem to be the simplest of all the
electoral reform plans, it actually makes three radical changes in the
present system -- all three of which entail very different kinds of
political consequences. Under his plan:

1. The census base would be abolished and the election decided on the

5.

the basis of the number of votes actually cast.

2. The state would be eliminated as a district and the individual's vote would be pooled directly with all others in the nation.

3. As a consequence of this, the electoral college would be abolished and the states deprived of the bonus votes they now receive.

Of these, the first reform is urgently needed. The remaining two, however, will impair, not improve, what we have now.

Of the three changes, it is the second that involves the greatest uncertainty and presents the greatest threat to the present American political system. Whereas under the present electoral system a candidate must win with a majority in at least twelve states in order to be elected, under the Bayh plan _a candidate could win with votes concentrated in only six states_. Though this event is only a mathematical possibility, there is a very real and dangerous possibility that a candidate might win with votes concentrated in only one region of the country. Thus, an election of 1984 might show a white racist candidate gaining a clear plurality by carrying 80% of the votes in the Southern states while losing the votes of Northern states on a split of 40-60%. Here it will be objected that by 1984 the Southern blacks will be voting in greater numbers and will be in a position to deter a racist candidate. But it must be remembered that when he is operating under a vastly changed system, the politician will adopt strategies to meet the new challenge. Whereas today a white racist has no reason not to permit a minority of blacks from voting for president --he needs, after all, only 51% of the state's votes -- he would under the Bayh system have every incentive to prevent _all_ blacks from voting since each such vote cast might nullify one of a supporter. For his purposes a disciplined white extremist party might be the most effective tool.

6.

Let us move a step further and suppose that the northerners should put their minds to defeating this hypothetical racist Southern candidate. They would have a choice of two basic strategies. Either they could form a coalition of northerners against southerners -- in which case they would divide the country along approximately the same lines it was divided during the Civil War. Or they could split up to form two, three, four or five small and similarly extremist parties, all of which might have a reasonable chance of winning in a run-off. In this case the situation of the United States would not be very different from that of France under the Fourth Republic, and it might with some reason yearn for an authoritarian leader, such as de Gaulle, to unite the country again.

Though advocates of the Bayh plan might well question the probability of the United States joining another civil war or electing an authoritarian government, they would be arguing on dangerous grounds. For the fact is the Bayh plan removes the deterrents which the present system provides against regionalist, racist and other special interest candidates and removes the major institutional prop from the two-party system.

Though there well may be a special genius to American politics, the chances are great that if the electoral system is changed in a drastic manner, the political system will change accordingly. And this is a risk that many Americans may not want to run. Our purposes here are not to defend the two-party system, but rather to insist that the advocates of any new system spell out the risks involved, if not the particular shape of the political system they would like to see emerging out of their electoral reform. An electoral system is, after all, no more than an instrument, and, as such, it must be judged not on its own aesthetic design, but on the consequences it will have for American political life.

And one of the important consequences of the Bayh plan, which its

7.

advocates do not appear to have foreseen, is that it will diminish if not destroy the power of voters in balanced districts.

Consider, for example, the "notorious" election of 1888, the only clear-cut case of a loser (Grover Cleveland) polling more popular votes than the winner (Benjamin Harrison). In that election New York state with 36 electoral votes split right down the middle, giving Harrison an edge of only 14,373 votes; Texas, on the other hand, with only 13 electoral votes, gave Cleveland a clear plurality of 146,461 votes. Under the Bayh system the Cleveland landslide in Texas would far outweigh the slim vote for Harrison in New York-- even though three times as many New Yorkers as Texans voted in the election and nearly three times as many New Yorkers voted for Harrison as Texans voted for Cleveland. To look at the statistics in the harshest light, if the Bayh plan had obtained in 1888, one vote in Texas would have the net impact of forty votes in New York. This is an excellent example of why the Bayh plan does not mean "one man, one vote" and how the present system does give power to the individual voter.

An advocate of the Bayh plan might here object that under his system the states will not exist as voting units, and therefore the example is irrelevant. But the objection is invalid, first because it is politically naive to assume that the states will disappear as coherent voting blocs simply because the presidential electoral system ignores them. Obviously, for as long as there are state governments and for as long as the voters of each state share coherent interests, state issues will be embedded in national campaigns. Further, should the people of the United States one day decide to abolish state lines altogether, there would still be regional interests of a major national importance.

A second and far more important argument has to do with the correspondence between the size of voting districts and the power of the individual voter. Under the present system small groups of voters in the balanced states have the

8.

power to swing an entire election. If, for instance, in 1888 seven thousand voters in New York had decided to vote for Cleveland instead of Harrison, they alone could have changed the results of the entire presidential election. Supporters of the Bayh proposal have in fact pointed out this statistic as an example of the injustice of the present system. But injustice it is not -- that is, if one is concerned with the power of the individual voter and not with the beauty of the statistics themselves. The fact is that the present system by giving importance to just such slight changes of votes provides bargaining power not only to the presently-constituted minorities but to every individual voter. Under the Bayh system the potential of any one small group of voters to swing the election one way or another would be substantially reduced; the candidate therefore would not need to consider the interests of the Mexican-Americans, the small businessmen, the cotton growers or the conservationists or any other small group who have now or might in the future develop a common interest. He would not need their support (nor would they have any incentive to make coalition with each other) because he could form majorities and minorities where he pleased, pitting, if he would, all urban against all rural people, all whites against all blacks, all hawks against doves. Under the Bayh system it is not only possible, but highly probable that the country would become a vast Alabama, in that it would be divided unevenly between majority and minority so that neither the minority nor the majority voters would have any power over the choice of president. In diminishing the power of the individual voter, the Bayh plan would remove what deterrents now exist to demagoguery and oppression of various minority groups.

Looked at from this point of view, it is the principle of competition which is basic to all truly democratic electoral systems. In this respect

9.

the present electoral laws have some analogy to the present anti-trust
laws. While neither are adequate to their tasks, the purpose of both
is to insure competition and thus to give the voter/consumer some freedom
of choice and some bargaining power. The ideal electoral system (the
analogy is the perfectly free market) is one in which all of the candidates
are competing for the votes of every individual. Seen in this perspective,
the fact that a candidate may very occasionally win an election with fewer
popular votes than his opponent is no injustice at all. Surely it is
not unfair to any candidate: he plays by the same rules as the others
do and is just as free as they are to campaign under them. Indeed,
given the possibilities for irresponsible behavior on the part of a candidate
who does not have to worry about his mandate, the present winner-take-all
districting provides a positive measure of protection for every individual.

To give yet another illustration, the electoral laws are like the
rules of all games, the purpose of which is to insure the fairest possible
competition. In basketball, for instance, a team may lose even though it
scores more field goals than the other team. This seeming injustice owes,
of course, to the provision for foul shots -- a rule without which the
game of basketball would become a very different sort of activity, one
more akin perhaps to a violent free-for-all. Similarly, without the
provision of winner-take-all districting, American politics might become
a savage and anarchic battle. A battle in which appeals for individual
votes were perhaps replaced by various forms of "fouling" -- the intimidation
of opposition voters by all parties in their areas of strength, and narrow
appeals on divisive and polarizing issues.

### III. The Maximum Voting Power Plan

10.

An alternative to the Bayh plan that would right the injustices of
the present system without sacrificing its advantages has been designed
by M.I.T. physicist, Dr. A. Natapoff. The great virtue of this plan
is that it would change only one out of three features of the present
system, thus opening the political process up to many fewer risks than
the Bayh plan, which alters all three features. Under this plan, which,
because it is designed to maximize the influence of the individual voter,
we shall call the Maximum Voting Power plan (MVP):

1. The states would remain as the voting districts, each state
voting in the final count on a winner-take-all basis, as it does now.

2. The electoral votes of each state would be apportioned not according
to the census of its population, but _according to the number of votes_
actualy cast in each election. This provision would, of course,
mean the replacement of the now-archaic electoral college by an automatic
tally.

3. At the same time, the bonus votes presently enjoyed equally by all
the states, irrespective of their population, would be kept at their
present effective level.

The single change the MVP system makes is therefore in its second
provision.

Consider how the MVP system will work. Let us suppose that by the
last census a certain state has 2,000 inhabitants, 1,000 of which actually
cast ballots, and shows a final count of 501 votes for one candidate, 499
for the other.

Under the present system the winner would take the electoral college
equivalent of 2,000 votes plus the two-vote state bonus. Here, the 1,000

* See Electoral College Reform, House Judiciary Committee Hearing, 1969

11.

non-voters -- the dead and those who could not or did not vote -- would
have an influence equal to that of all other voting citizens.

Under the Bayh plan the winner would take exactly 501 votes and the
loser, 499. This group of voters would, in other words, almost entirely
cancel each other out, for they would have a net influence upon the entire
election of only two votes for the thousand they cast.

Under the Maximum Voting Power plan the winner would take 1,000
votes plus the number of bonus votes apportioned to the state. There
are three main virtues to this system. First, it preserves the influence
of voters in the balanced states. Secondly, it removes the undue advantage
the present system gives to the voters in states with stable populations
or large percentages of non-voters. Thirdly, it corrects the injustice
the present system inflicts upon voters in "sure" or one-party states
(e.g., the Southern states).

As the second provision of this plan is the only one which will make
an appreciable change in current voting patterns, it deserves closer
examination. Let us suppose, for instance, that this state of 2,000
inhabitants was a "sure" state with 700 people voting for one candidate,
300 for another. Under the MVP system the majority candidate and the
local majority politicians would have every incentive to get out all the
voters in the state, even if they knew that the new votes would go to
the opposition. If they brought, let us say, 200 new voters to the polls,
they might end with a total of 700 voters for their candidate, 500 for the
other, but the majority candidate would win 1,200 votes (instead of 1,000)
plus the states' bonus in the final count. To any practical politician
it is obvious that this system would increase the power of the majority
voters in the state. But -- and this is the beauty of the system --

12.

it also increases the power of the minority voters, for in order to get
out the vote the majority would have to make some concessions to the
minority voters. Conversely, the minority voters could effectively
punish the majority by exercising their option to cast a blank ballot
or to stay away from the polls. In the deep South, for example, a black
boycott of the polls would act as an effective protest against the whites
who controlled one or both of the political machines. Until they could
successfully negotiate with blacks on local issues, the whites would have
a diminished influence on the national elections. In a word, then, the
MVP increases the bargaining power of every individual voter.

As can be inferred from the foregoing, the MVP system also favors the
formation of close districts where candidates must compete for all or
most of the votes, and, as a consequence, favors the continuance of the
two-party system with many of its advantages enhanced.

One feature of the MVP system remains to be explained, and that is
the retention of the present provision for the states' bonus votes.
(Note: Under this plan the states would not have the present two extra
votes-- that number, of course, reflects the make-up of the electoral
college-- but merely an equal number of votes calculated to a similar
weight of equivalence.) Though any mathematician will immediately grasp
the importance of this feature, the makers of the Constitution understood
it in practical political terms. As an illustration, let us suppose
that New York state has a number of voters equal to those of six small
states. Clearly, if this were true, it would cost the candidate a great
deal less effort to campaign in New York than to campaign in all six of
the small states. All the voters in the small states would therefore

13.

have less influence in the election than all of the voters in New York,
even though their numbers were equal. By giving the same number of bonus
votes to all states, the MVP plan, like the present system, would help
to make the power of the voters in every state approximately equal.

Electoral systems are complicated instruments. If well designed,
they ought to discourage certain forms of political behavior and
encourage others, maintaining a delicate balance of tensions between
the political forces. Though they may seem simple they are not so, for,
as has been shown throughout, they depend on a very intricate set of
underlying principles. Because the advocates of the Bayh system have
not sufficiently taken these principles into account, they have designed
a system that is all too simple and that falls drastically short of the
goals of a truly democratic system. Though there is no such thing as an
ideal system, the MVP voting plan, among all those related to our present
one, succeeds best in approximating that ideal of giving maximum and
equal power to every individual voter in the United States.

Foot Note:

Though the question of deadlocks has commanded a great deal of
attention in discussion of electoral reform, we have decided not
to include it in this discussion because it is a technical matter
tenuously related to the basic problem of designing a just
electoral system, where every individual has the maximum
influence over the choice of president.

PRESS -- 1/29/73 (lds)

3/5/73

FITZGERALD -- HAK Personnel @

Type of Request & Date

(Last name and pending date)

Name: Frances Fitzgerald

KISSINGER, HENRY A./F*

Request: Is doing a piece for the ATLANTIC MONTHLY on Vietnam and, in this regard, would like an appointment with Mr. Kissinger.

RSVP: 338-5397

CSH's Recommendation:

HAK's Answer: 3/5/73 - HAK "reqets"

Date and Time:

Party Contacted:

Additional Information:

Resolution:

RECEIVED

MAR 7 1973

CENTRAL FILED

AMBASAID NA HÉIREANN

EMBASSY OF IRELAND

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006

EXECUTIVE

C O 70

FGG-11-1/KISSINGER, HENRY A.
KISSINGER, HENRY A. / F &

Moore, John D. J.

D. 24/5

September 11, 1973

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Dr. Kissinger,

I would like to congratulate you on the additional high
duties entrusted to you by the President, to wish you
continued success and to express the hope that the
existing happy Irish-American relations will continue
to thrive and flourish.

In this connection, as you know there is a current inquiry
on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr. Garret
Fitzgerald, who will shortly be attending the U.N. General
Assembly in New York, as to whether you would be able to
receive him in Washington during his first visit as Minister
to the American capital. The preferred dates mentioned
are September 26 or September 27. However, if neither of
these dates is convenient for you, the Minister, who is
scheduled to address the General Assembly on September 24,
could probably come to Washington on another day from
September 25 through October 4.

In order to help finalize the Minister's programme, I would
appreciate early word regarding this appointment.

For ease of reference, I am enclosing a curriculum vitae of
Dr. Fitzgerald.

With renewed good wishes.

EMBASSY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Dublin, Ireland

August 15, 1973

Honorable Henry Kissinger
The White House
Washington, D. C.

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

This is a special request which I hope you will be able
to grant.

Dr. Garret FitzGerald, the very brilliant and interesting new Irish Foreign Minister, is to make his first visit to the United States in order to speak at the opening of the General Assembly. He has particularly requested that I ask you to receive him while he is in our country. He has been told that he will speak either on September 24 or October second or third and, accordingly, he could be in Washington on any day from September 25 to October 1, inclusive. He hopes also for an appointment with Secretary Rogers.

Garret FitzGerald is one of the most brilliant and interesting Irishmen of this generation. He has really revitalized the Foreign Office and has already made a very significant impression among the foreign ministers and other leaders in the EEC. He is an economist by training.

In our own case, he was the first Foreign Minister to grasp the nettle of our long-standing airline landing route dispute with Ireland and, thanks to him, we got that settled at the very outset of the new Irish administration. I think he will be quite important to us in the "Year of Europe" discussions, and I particularly feel that a meeting with you would be helpful in clarifying his own ideas concerning the relationship of the United States to the European Community in the light of the President's proposed visit.

So it would be deeply appreciated by this Embassy if you could
arrange to receive Dr. FitzGerald on his forthcoming visit.

With all good wishes in your great endeavors, I am

RECEIVED

OCT 30 1973

CENTRAL FILL

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506

GENERAL

February 2, 1970

F & 6-11-7

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID YOUNG

FROM: John C. Court

SUBJECT: Fitzhugh Meeting with Dr. Kissinger

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

★

In the course of their meeting, Dr. Kissinger agreed to meet with Mr. Fitzhugh again during the next few weeks, and to allow a Colonel Leger of Fitzhugh's staff to sit in on an assortment of our meetings.

Could you arrange for another appointment for Mr. Fitzhugh. The best time would be immediately prior to Fitzhugh's meeting with the President now scheduled for February 23. Mr. Fitzhugh advised me that February 4, 9, 10, 27 would be difficult days for him.

I have sent Jeanne Davis a memo (Tab A) arranging for Colonel Leger to sit in on some meetings.

Enclosure

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506

February 2, 1970

MEMORANDUM FOR JEANNE DAVIS

FROM: John C. Court

SUBJECT: Blue Ribbon Defense Panel Participation in NSC Meetings

Last week, Dr. Kissinger met with Mr. Gilbert Fitzhugh, Chairman of the Blue Ribbon Defense Panel. He agreed at that time to let a Colonel Leger sit in on some meetings sponsored by the NSC. Could you make arrangements for Colonel Leger to attend:

- a DPRC meeting

- a VSSG working group meeting

- a Review Group meeting

- a Verification Panel working group meeting