I believe you’re confused over Madison’s virulent objection to the President’s election by the FEDERAL Legislature (basically a parliamentary system with a weak executive).
it’s not helpful, or persuasive, to seek out only what supports one’s position. Perhaps that fault kept you from seeing Madison’s expression of his preference (though not unqualified LOL!) for a popular vote.
AS events played out the Founders left it to the States- as the Constitution says- to control the Electors.
(i don’t see a significance in “appoint”, it’s a reasonable argument though).
Wish Hamilton had participated more in the Convention.
There is no confusion on my part.
Madison was opposed to a federal legislature choosing the Chief Executive which would have been impossible at the time since we did not have a federal legislature until after the constitution had gone into operation. His warning was directed to the states.
“The existing authorities in the STATES are the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary. The appointment of the Natl Executive by the first was objectionable in many points (of view), some of which had been already mentioned. He would mention one which of itself would decide his opinion. The Legislatures of the States had betrayed a strong propensity to a variety of pernicious measures.”
I was just the existence of these pernicious measures which had led to the Constitutional Convention to begin with.
His initial belief was that the states’ laws should be subject to federal vetos and that the states should be weakened to impotence or reduced altogether.
Not even Hamilton wanted to go that far.