>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There was an interesting article in the Washington Post that said the framers thought the votes would often be divided among several farorite sons (no favorite daughters in those days) and that often the House would make the final selection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

More importantly, they did not anticipate (and many were strongly against) the rise of political parties. Some folks have speculated that they expected that presidential elections *not* decided in congress would be the exception. In other words, if a majority of electors voted for one person, okay, fine, we'll take him... otherwise, let congress decide.

This is a bit off-topic, but direct voting of senators is a relatively new phenomenon as well -- the constitution does not specify it, assuming, instead, that each state legislature would pick two of the best and brightest to represent their state.

It's extremely important to note that the United States is not a Democracy. Period. It's a Representative Republic. Huge difference. As Alexander Hamilton put it in a debate with one of his colleagues, (I think I have this right), "your People, sir, is a great beast." Agree with the philosophy or not, it's a very important point about our country. (At its worst, it is an extremely elitist approach to government that assumes that the people, especially poor people, cannot be trusted; at its best, it protects minority groups [not just racial, of course] from mass rule and sudden swings of opinion.)