> Doesn't this goes against your argument then? No. It was also anti-democratic at that time, but because the distribution of the vote was an order of magnitud

> Doesn't this goes against your argument then? No. It was also anti-democratic at that time, but because the distribution of the vote was an order of magnitude less divergent, and the only people who could vote were landowning white men, it was able to succeed politically as a compromise. Since then, its anti-democratic effects have magnified as the population divergence between states has magnified.