Does a nonproportional Senate and non-proportional, non-democratic Electoral College harm democracy?

[davidn3600]

23. You basically had two different camps during the writing of the constitution

You had the federalists and the anti-federalists. And nearly everything they did when writing this document was one gigantic compromise. The reason for the House and Senate elected in the manner that they are is a result of a compromise.

Keep in mind that after the Revolution, there was no central government. You had 13 individual colonies and each sort of wanted to safeguard some sense of autonomy and not have some overlord authority telling them what to do. They just fought a war to get rid of that. So you dont have the same starting point most other nations have following a revolution. You could have very easily had a civil war following the revolution if the colonies didnt all stick together. They needed to compromise on everything. And they needed adoption of the constitution to be unanimous. They needed to make everyone happy.

The document largely focused on the structure and limitations of the federal government. Its purpose was never really designed to solve social problems because the founders believed those issues would likely change many times through the ages and would be best suited for future society to determine for themselves through legislative processes. Putting social issues there would create a rigid document that might be a barrier to social progress.

There was absolutely no way you can abolish slavery in 1789. You'd spark a civil war. Some of them did understand the hypocrisy of creating a free country that also has slaves. Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and others made note of it in their writings. But they were far more concerned at this time about stabilizing the nation and preventing a repeat of tyranny. The issue of slavery would have to be solved later.