How exactly does our system in practice promote coalition building or protect sparsely populated states? I'm not seeing that at all. And in any case if that's your gold standard it'd be kind of hard to beat a Parliamentary system.
Democracy really has nothing to do with the mechanics of how elections are run. The founders feared direct democracy as you say, that why we have a representative democracy - "elite democracy" in the language of those days - and a Constitution.Originally Posted by vesper;1062161946
Contrary to modern perceptions, the founding generation did not intend to create a direct democracy. To the contrary, the Founders deliberately created a republic -- or, arguably, a republican democracy -- that would incorporate a spirit of compromise and deliberation into decision-making. Such a form of government, the Founders believed, would allow them to achieve two potentially conflicting objectives: avoiding the "tyranny of the majority" inherent in pure democratic systems, while allowing the "sense of the people" to be reflected in the new American government. A republican government, organized on federalist principles, would allow the delegates to achieve the most difficult of their tasks by enabling large and small sovereign states to live peacefully alongside each other.
The author(s) of the Constitution (Madison often called the father of the Constitution) had studied the history of many failed democratic systems, and they wanted to create a different form of government. Indeed, James Madison, delegate from Virginia, argued that unrestrained majorities such as those found in pure democracies tend toward tyranny. Madison stated it this way: