Final answer:
The framers of the U.S. Constitution created a system of checks and balances with an Electoral College to elect presidents, demonstrating a cautious approach towards direct democracy and power concentration. This design reflects a distrust in a purely direct democracy, preferring a layered representation, and it continues to impact U.S. elections today.
Step-by-step explanation:
The framers of the U.S. Constitution were mindful of the dangers of putting too much power in any single body or individual, including an executive or a direct democracy. Fearing the excesses of British monarchical rule, they implemented a system of checks and balances and a representative democracy. While members of the House of Representatives were to be directly elected by the people, the Senate was originally selected by state legislatures, the President was chosen by the Electoral College, and federal judges were appointed to serve life terms. This framework was intended to protect against the rapid implementation of the whims of the populace, while ensuring a government responsive to its citizens.
To address these competing tensions, delegates ultimately settled on a single executive, with the president being elected through a system of electors. This compromise was symptomatic of the broader struggle to find a balance between a powerful executive and the risk of creating a new form of tyranny. James Wilson's suggestion, which became the basis of the Electoral College, reflected a cautious approach to presidential elections, designed to temper direct democracy with a layer of representative approval.
Today, this element of the Constitution still affects U.S. presidential elections, though the perception of and satisfaction with this system varies widely. Some argue that it remains a vital mechanism to ensure balanced representation across diverse states, while others criticize it for being out of step with the principle of one person, one vote due to its potential to overlook the national popular vote.