Election of U.S. President by People is Unconstitutional, according to U.S. Constitution

There's a LOT of talk about the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. This is the way it’s supposed to be done (substitute your own state for “Texas”):

Texas appoints Electors. The number of Electors is the total number of Texas Senators and Representatives in Congress. This appointment is done in the way that the Texas Legislature says - i.e. by direct selection, by vote of all Texas’ residents, by lottery, by flipping a coin, by looking at the stars, by whatever. Additionally, according to Article 2, an Elector cannot be a Texas "Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States." (emphasis added) ... Wow, that would exclude a LOT of people.

Meeting in Texas, the Electors “vote by ballot for President and Vice-President.” The Electors “make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President … and Vice-President” along with the number of votes. This list is certified and transmitted sealed to the President of the Senate, who opens it and counts. If one person gets a majority of all Electors, that person is the President. If there is no majority, the House of Representatives chooses by ballot from the top three names, Texas having one vote. This must be done by the next March. (Amendment 12)

Thus, the primaries for Presidential contenders and the general election for U.S. President are not U.S. Constitutional. They’re a waste of time and money. (Of course, we already know that.) The Electors are supposed to do it. Why? Because the federal system is a Republic, not a Democracy. It’s not that it couldn’t be a Democracy. Just amend the U.S. Constitution. But until that’s done, let’s not pretend that it is a Democracy. Besides, even a Democracy is not what most people would really want... But that’s another story.