THE WALLACE DILEMMA

WHATEVER else may be said about George Wallace and his third-party presidential candidacy, the Alabamian has delivered on one cam paign promise before getting his first vote. "We're going to shake the eyeteeth of the liberals of both national parties," he pledged in Des Moines last week. By liberal, he means anything left of the far, far right, and he has already unsettled some political ivory in that broad area.

With Wallace drawing up to one-fifth of the straws in some polls, there is cause for concern. The Republicans are particularly worried because of his strength in the South. Boosters of both Nelson Rockefeller and Ronald Reagan are using the Wallace threat in their attempts to pry loose Richard Nixon's convention delegates. Florida's Republican Governor Claude Kirk is distributing an arithmetical bumper sticker: 2P-: GW= H^3 Translation: Two parties divided by George Wallace equals Hubert Horatio Humphrey. The Democrats, also, fear that Wallace could hurt them in blue-collar areas outside Dixie.

Dangers. The shadow cast by Wallace involves not popular ballots but electoral votes. Wallace predicts that he will be on the ballot in all states except, perhaps, Ohio, and his aides claim that he has qualified in some three dozen already (although in Massachusetts election officials have been rejecting up to 70% of the signatures on Wallace nominating petitions as inaccurate or false). It is certain that citizens represented by a large majority of the electoral vote will get a chance to cast Wallace ballots. How many is difficult to forecast. Third-party candidates often look more powerful in the summer than on Election Day.

If Wallace carries some Southern states and the major candidates run a very close race, it is possible that neither the Democrat nor the Republican will get the 270 electoral votes needed for victory. Wallace has said that in this case he might attempt to barter his electoral votes for policy concessions before the electors meet Dec. 16. In fact, it is most unlikely that any candidate would treat with Wallace. Thus, the issue would be up to Congress in January. The Constitution calls for the House of Representatives to select the President, with each state delegation casting one vote and a majority of 26 states needed for a decision. If no vice-presidential candidate had an electoral majority, the Senate would vote to fill the second spot.

The presidential election has gone to the House only twice, in 1801 and 1825. In the latter case, John Quincy Adams won, although he had trailed Andrew Jackson in both popular and electoral votes.* There are other dangers as well. If the House and Senate are controlled by different parties and vote along party lines, the President and Vice President could conceivably be of different parties. Even more unsettling is the possibility that the House might be deadlocked. Then the Vice President chosen by the Senate--presuming it could reach a decision--would become the acting President.

Some Congressmen propose to avert this threat by embroidering on the Constitution. Republican Charles Goodell of New York and Democrat Morris Udall of Arizona are pushing a plan put forward by University of Virginia Professor Gary Orfield, who argues that a gentlemen's agreement can neutralize the American Independent Party. The gentlemen in question are the leaders and candidates of the two major parties, plus prospective members of the 91st Congress, which convenes next January. They would have to agree in advance that if a House vote is necessary, the prize would go to the candidate with the biggest popular vote.

Skepticism. Goodell said last week that this would protect against "constitutional crisis." Indeed, the idea is superficially attractive and the Goodell-Udall "People's Presidential Committee" has drawn some bipartisan House support. The candidates themselves view the plan with varying degrees of skepticism. And both Carl Albert, the House Democratic Majority Leader, and his Republican counterpart, Gerald Ford, reacted charily to the Goodell-Udall scheme.

This reticence is hardly based on esteem for Wallace or for splinter parties. Rather, there is a reluctance to amend the Constitution by fiat and, in effect, deprive a potentially large group of voters of its influence on the electoral process, even though that impact may be disruptive. There is also a practical consideration. By uniting to negate Wallace's votes, the Democrats and Republicans would be lending corroboration to his attacks on them. Last week, protesting "the conspiracy to circumvent the Constitution," Wallace declared: "The once-major parties find it necessary to pool their resources to ward off our grass-roots movement."

Although it is unlikely that the Goodell-Udall committee will get the stopgap agreement it seeks, the fears evoked by the Wallace candidacy may serve a more lasting purpose if they lead to genuine reform of the anachronistic Electoral College system. Numerous proposals toward this end have been put forward over the years, only to wither for lack of popular interest. This year the Wallace threat could succeed where the reformers have failed.

*Rutherford Hayes and Benjamin Harrison were the two other Presidents who won although running second in popular votes. In the case of Hayes, a special commission appointed by Congress awarded him electoral votes also claimed by his opponent, Samuel Tilden. Harrison won because the geographic distribution of his popular vote gave him an electoral majority.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.