Criticisms of the Constitution as Undemocratic

People these days who criticize the Constitution, as originally drafted, as undemocratic do so on new democratic terms.  The undemocratic features of the Constitution as originally drafted are (1) it left in place existing state restrictions on the vote; (2) Senators were elected by state legislatures instead of the people; and (3) the President is elected by the Electoral College instead of the people directly, and at the time presidential electors were generally chosen by state legislatures. 

Yet these are not the arguments people made against the Constitution during the ratification debates.  When opponents of the Constitution criticized it as undemocratic, it was invariably on old democratic grounds.  People criticized the House of Representatives for have a two-year instead of a one-year term, for not being large enough to adequately represent the people, and for allowing Congress to regulate elections (many people feared that Congress would order elections to be held in some inaccessible place to prevent voters from attending) but not for retaining existing state restrictions on the vote.  People criticized the lack of an executive council and said that the President was too powerful or (surprisingly and more often) not powerful enough, but the Electoral College was a very minor source of controversy.  As for the Senate, people criticized its six-year terms, its small numbers, its ability to alter money bills, its equal representation by states (in large states), its role in appointments and treaties, and its role as a court of impeachments.  Election of Senators by the state legislatures was not controversial.  After all, under the Articles of Confederation, all representatives were elected by state legislatures.  Election of the Senate in the same manner merely continued a familiar custom.

In fact, James Wilson, who we have seen was the foremost new democrat at the Convention, made a famous speech in favor of the constitution in which he presented these as important arguments in favor of the Constitution.  Clearly, he said, the central government  could not be intended to destroy state governments if state legislatures set voting qualifications for the House, elect Senators and decide how presidential electors are to be chosen.  These three features show that the new system could not survive without states.*

The Federalist Papers are also revealing, going on the assumption that what they argue most strenuously is a good indication of what was most controversial at the time.  In the section on the House, they devote two essays to defending two-year terms, three essays to defendant Congress’ authority to regulate elections , three essays to arguing that the House is large enough to be safe to liberty and one paragraph to discussing voting qualifications.  Likewise, out of the five essays on the Senate, the election of Senators by state legislatures is dismissed in one short paragraph as “probably the most congenial with public opinion.”  As for the Electoral College,  Hamilton calls it, “almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe criticism or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents”

---

*Wilson's speech was reprinted and circulated throughout the states and became the single best known document in favor of the Constitution.  As the earliest major Federalist argument, it effectively became the Federalist playbook that other arguments in favor of the Constitution followed.  The Federalist Papers in many places are simply an expansion on Wilson's arguments and would probably have seemed like a mere recitation of well-worn talking points by Anti-Federalist contemporaries.