3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoIndirect 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 agoThe 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.