That didn't really work. Even before the Constitution was ratified, the country was divided between Federalists, who favored a strong central government, and Anti-Federalists, who favored states' rights. Simple mistakes in party strategy led in 1796 to the election of a President and a Vice President from opposing parties, and in 1800 to a tie that had to be broken in the House.
Why would the framers of the Constitution have prescribed such a procedure? Well, obviously they weren't thinking of political parties. They must have imagined that everybody would agree on general policy, and the election would simply choose the best person to carry it out.
Of course, that's not the way it works, and we all know that now, don't we? Don't bet on it. Ask people why they voted for George W. Bush in 2004, and many of them will say they voted for the man, not for the policies they expected him to carry out.
- "I believe he's a man of strong convictions, beliefs and principles."
- "... he is an honourable man who makes decisions based on principles, not polls and a man who can be taken at his word."
- "... we need a strong man for these trying times."
- "He is strong, confident, and stands by his integrity. He is not swayed by those who disagree with him, yet he allows them their right to disagree. He makes me feel safe."
Of course there were others who voted for Bush, and many who voted for John F. Kerry, who cited policy as their reasons for voting.
But the election was decided by those who thought, against all the evidence, that their vote should be determined by their judgment of a candidate's character, not their preference for the policies he intended to carry out.