How would a direct democratic election of the president change the role of that office?

Question

The role of the president was never to be the direct ruler of the people. His role was to serve as the head of the unified collection of independent states to the world.

The democratically elected executive was supposed to be the governor of a state. The federal government is the representative body of the states, not the people. That's why only one house of congress was to be popularly elected. If we move to complete popular election of all federal offices, then wouldn't it completely invert the state/federal relationship? Roles that were reserved to the states would be devolved to the federal government, and voting in local elections would become redundant. Why have governors, or even states at all, when all the power will be vested in a unitary executive with popular demands to shoulder responsibilites formerly reserved to states, as will naturally tend to happen as people begin to view the presidency as the penultimate governorship.

There already is a danger presently in how people perceive the role of that office. Look at how many people believe that the president should have done more for Katrina. Or believe that the president should decide how children are educated, or that the president should help homeless people and poor people. A frighteningly large number of people seem to prefer a president as king rather that the limited role the founders envisioned.

Answer 1

This would be a disaster which would undo the original intent of the constitution's framers. They knew all the historical precedents of direct democracy degenerating into tyranny, so they did their best to prevent direct democracy by setting up a constitutional federated republic instead

Answer 2

This is actually the principles of the Articles of Confederation, the predessor to the current constitution and later the Confederate States of America. What you are arguing is a return to a system where the induvidual states are supreme, not the federal gov't. This was not considered practical immediately following the revolutionary war, and it is even less appropriate now.

As for doing away with the electoral college, which is what I think you are refering to in the first part of your question. This would make every vote count rather than the current system of ignoring the votes of the minority such as dems in red states or vice versa.

Answer 3

Wow. Would I be correct in guessing this is a homework question? I don't believe I've seen anything even remotely like this on answers before...I'm thinking a lot of people won't understand the question.
The kind of inversion of power that you mentioned would be a bad thing, at least looking at it from the perspective of the ideals our nation was supposedly founded on. In order to maintain the allowance of diverse groups with diverse thinking to live harmoniously, we need to have the combination of federal and state systems. If all the power were vested in the president and highest minions, we'd end up with a world like that envisioned by Orwell in 1984. Too much cohesion is a bad thing, and that's what comes of too much power being held by one or few people. On the reverse side, if the states were given too much sovereign power, they'd probably end up fighting with each other, due to the similarity in cultures and values in close proximity to each other.

Answer 4

How refreshing !
People who can debate an issue, speak and write English and make a point.
I know this does not answer your question. I like the question and the answers are well informed also.

Answer 5

All votes are important, not just key states

Answer 6

I bet you're a real bore on a date.