Election, what else...

Well I think the blog is finally living up to its name and writing about politics. Just to take a side detour, the election has me thinking a lot more about our democracy/republic in general. I was talking with a friend recently about the federalist papers, and their vision for our country, but I have also been thinking about the way the constitution set up our government vs. the way it is set up now. The main difference is that our country has become more democratic over time in two ways. First, the requirements for voting have become increasingly liberal: from property requirements to universal white male suffrage, to black male suffrage, to womens suffrage, to protection of voting rights at the polls themselves. (Despite Republican efforts at disenfranchisement every cycle...) Secondly, by tying the electoral votes to the popular vote in each state either proportionately, or more commonly as a winner takes all system. (How electoral votes are cast remains the decision of the state legislatures.)
Originally, the electors were chosen by the state legislatures themselves, with the idea that they would choose wise representatives who at least closely mirror the political feelings of the people, after all the legislatures were largely chosen by the people. While the first instance of allowing more and more people to vote was of course overdue and made our country a stronger better place, increasingly I wonder if the second instance of tying the electoral college directly to popular votes was such a wise decision.
I have been telling friends that increasingly our presidential elections resemble a middle school that has decided to choose its next principle by a vote of the students. Removing the presidential election from a direct vote of the people would not make it less political, but perhaps it would at the very least raise the level of discourse from blatent pandering on both sides to real discussion of the issues, and could perhaps take some of the money out of the process. It may be that I am overly optimistic of the changes that this would create, but at least it would open up the possibility that the candidates could engage in a higher discourse and discourage such hail mary histarics as choosing a crazy lady from Alaska as your running mate. (Sorry, couldn't quite keep my own feelings out of this). But ultimately it is not a partison issue, I think both parties would benefit from this change and it very well could improve people's faith in our leaders as they could tone down the double talk, lies, and exageration during the campaign and thus maintain just a little bit of their dignity. (While John McCain has certainly been the worse of the two in this regard, even my beloved Obama has not been completely above the fray.)
I know that this opinion sets me up as some what of an eletist but I think one only needs to look at some of the political ads that are running, some of the polls that indicate how little the public knows about the candidates (they still think Obama is a Muslim), and it becomes clear that the system we have now is not necessaraly the best way of doing things. I do not believe that we have to follow original intent of the Constitution, but in this case I think the founders had it right (despite being racist, sexist, elitists, they were pretty smart dudes.)
One final thought, for those who fear that this is undemocratic, you could conceivably keep the primary process as is, while changing the the general election to this system. Therefor the people of both parties could still choose their leaders while the electors could decide the election. Extra point for whoever figures out based on the composition of the state legislatures who would win the election were these changes enacted.