Replies

As a farther precaution, it might be required that they should meet at some place, distinct from the seat of Govt. and even that no person within a certain distance of the place at the time shd. be eligible. This Mode however had been rejected so recently & by so great a majority that it probably would not be proposed anew. The remaining mode was an election by the people or rather by the qualified part of them, at large: With all its imperfections he liked this best. He would not repeat either the general argumts. for or the objections agst. this mode. He would only take notice of two difficulties which he admitted to have weight. The first arose from the disposition in the people to prefer a Citizen of their own State, and the disadvantage this wd. throw on the smaller States. Great as this objection might be he did not think it equal to such as lay agst. every other mode which had been proposed. He thought too that some expedient might be hit upon that would obviate it. The second difficulty arose from the disproportion of qualified voters in the N. & S. States, and the disadvantages which this mode would throw on the latter.

and

Mr. GOVERNr. MORRIS was pointedly agst. his being so chosen. He will be the mere creature of the Legisl: if appointed & impeachable by that body. He ought to be elected by the people at large, by the freeholders of the Country. That difficulties attend this mode, he admits. But they have been found superable in N. Y. & in Cont. and would he believed be found so, in the case of an Executive for the U. States. If the people should elect, they will never fail to prefer some man of distinguished character, or services; some man, if he might so speak, of continental reputation. -- If the Legislature elect, it will be the work of intrigue, of cabal, and of faction; it will be like the election of a pope by a conclave of cardinals; real merit will rarely be the title to the appointment. He moved to strike out "National Legislature" & insert "citizens of [21] U.S."

Mr. SHERMAN thought that the sense of the Nation would be better expressed by the Legislature, than by the people at large. The latter will never be sufficiently informed of characters, and besides will never give a majority of votes to any one man. They will generally vote for some man in their own State, and the largest State will have the best chance for the appointment. If the choice be made by the Legislre. A majority of voices may be made necessary to constitute an election.

Sherman's argument is that most people would not know anything about the candidate and is his character.

I take this, as have many others, to mean communications. How would anyone, in New York or New Hampshire the 1780s, know of someone in Georgia or the Carolinas. The media as we know of it today did not exist. A news story was considered newsworthy for months, as long as no one else locally published it.

The Swift Boat Veterans, among others, quickly pointed out the flaws in John Kerry's character, but this is the result of modern communications. Even postal services at the time took months to move a letter from Point A to Point B. Newspapers could be counted by the dozens rather than hundreds or thousands.

Sherman feared that the general public wouldn't know enough to make an informed decision on an issue as important as electing the chief executive. Clearly, we are all better informed today.

Also as clearly, the founding fathers were not all in agreement on this issue. Many, at the time, felt that the use of an electoral system unnecessary.

Regardless of that, The founding father also felt that time and progress would require that the constritution be changed and modified from time to time. They felt that it should be a difficult process, but the fact that they left the ability to make any changes whatsoever obviously indicates that they knew changes would come, and that the Constitution was NOT to be carved in stone.