4 ms·

For historical context, it may be worth noting that the framers of the US constitution did not envision having direct popular election of the President [1], nor

For historical context, it may be worth noting that the framers of the US constitution did not envision having direct popular election of the President [1], nor of senators [2]. To be clear, I'm not indicating that the framers had the right idea about this. Rather, just mentioning that the risks of under-informed general populace exercising direct democratic election has been under consideration since the nation's founding. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#Evolution_to_the_general_ticket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_Colleg... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_U...

DubiousPusher 6y ago
Not just that. They were basically counting on a farely elite electorate being established in most states. Universal Manhood Suffrage wasn't even really an issue in the American revolution the way it was in the French Rev. Even through the progressive era when some of these things changed, parties were more powerful and they definitely filtered popular intent. And that way more than today. We didn't have small 'd' democratic presidential primaries until the 70s and this last one was the first for the Democrats.
jsight 6y ago
I don't really understand how that is relevant to the OP's question about censorship. Did the framers also think that censoring the views of the POTUS would be required? EDIT: Although going along with your point, I also remember the framers wanting the electors to be determined at the local level (district) rather than state. That would change things significantly, IMO.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  The question was "are we really so stupid that..." The answer, at least according to the Framers, as implied by their actions, is "yes."
- rayiner 6y ago
  Indirect selection of the executive reduces the populist power of the President. They have to win votes of party members, not the public at large.
- evanelias 6y ago
  The sibling comments already stated this well, but yes you're correct that I didn't directly address the censorship angle. However I believe that becomes moot in the system originally designed by the framers. As per Hamilton and Madison in my first link above, the original intention was to have members of the electoral college be unbiased, well-respected, well-educated citizens who each independently voted for whichever candidate they thought would be the best president. Only the members of the electoral college directly voted for a specific presidential candidate. On a local level, the presidential election consists of electing members of the electoral college, who each were not originally envisioned to be pledged to one specific presidential candidate. This system quickly proved to be overly idealistic, with respect to the fast rise of political parties in the US. Anyway, my original point was simply that an under-informed voting public was always a major concern in American democracy, rather than a new or modern concern.
jrs235 6y ago
To be fair, the founders established the federal government to be a government for/of the states. It was established to manage and negotiate the affairs and disputes between the states (like the EU today). Each state was it's own sovereign "country" and upon ratifying the Constitution voluntarily gave up limited sovereignty to the federal government. There's a whole ton more to unpack here and yes, the original folks allowed suffrage (at the federal and individual state levels) were the "nobles" (landowners) who from what I know and can ascertain where almost exclusively white men.

DubiousPusher 6y ago

Not just that. They were basically counting on a farely elite electorate being established in most states. Universal Manhood Suffrage wasn't even really an issue in the American revolution the way it was in the French Rev. Even through the progressive era when some of these things changed, parties were more powerful and they definitely filtered popular intent. And that way more than today. We didn't have small 'd' democratic presidential primaries until the 70s and this last one was the first for the Democrats.

jsight 6y ago

I don't really understand how that is relevant to the OP's question about censorship. Did the framers also think that censoring the views of the POTUS would be required? EDIT: Although going along with your point, I also remember the framers wanting the electors to be determined at the local level (district) rather than state. That would change things significantly, IMO.

pmiller2 6y ago
The question was "are we really so stupid that..." The answer, at least according to the Framers, as implied by their actions, is "yes."
rayiner 6y ago
Indirect selection of the executive reduces the populist power of the President. They have to win votes of party members, not the public at large.
evanelias 6y ago
The sibling comments already stated this well, but yes you're correct that I didn't directly address the censorship angle. However I believe that becomes moot in the system originally designed by the framers. As per Hamilton and Madison in my first link above, the original intention was to have members of the electoral college be unbiased, well-respected, well-educated citizens who each independently voted for whichever candidate they thought would be the best president. Only the members of the electoral college directly voted for a specific presidential candidate. On a local level, the presidential election consists of electing members of the electoral college, who each were not originally envisioned to be pledged to one specific presidential candidate. This system quickly proved to be overly idealistic, with respect to the fast rise of political parties in the US. Anyway, my original point was simply that an under-informed voting public was always a major concern in American democracy, rather than a new or modern concern.

jrs235 6y ago

To be fair, the founders established the federal government to be a government for/of the states. It was established to manage and negotiate the affairs and disputes between the states (like the EU today). Each state was it's own sovereign "country" and upon ratifying the Constitution voluntarily gave up limited sovereignty to the federal government. There's a whole ton more to unpack here and yes, the original folks allowed suffrage (at the federal and individual state levels) were the "nobles" (landowners) who from what I know and can ascertain where almost exclusively white men.