Great article. It quotes a lot of very popular fallacies that I've often seen used by people not understanding that they're fallacies.

Take this one:

Another way of saying the same thing is: allowing non-propertied people to vote would be like two wolves and a lamb deciding on the dinner menu. There would be nothing to stop the wolves (those without property) from preying on the lamb.

The reality is that lambs outnumber wolves, but without voting rights, they're unable to depend themselves from the wolves, and that's how it's been throughout human history before universal suffrage. The rich prey on the poor. And they still do.

The real analogy is one wolf and two lambs voting what's for dinner, but only the wolf having the right to vote.

The drafters sought to mitigate the potential problem of demagogues and to limit a possible tyranny of the majority by setting up institutional checks and balances so that, should a demagogue come to power, his ability to wreak havoc would be (at least somewhat) limited. Similarly, they viewed dividing the power and creating checks, particularly the judicial branch, as a way to help prevent a tyranny of the majority.

And they did a very imperfect job at that. The whole idea that they could have gotten it right immediately is ridiculous, and they quite obviously failed. The fact that judges are political appointments already destroys the notion that the judiciary is truly independent. A demagogue has come to power and did wreak havoc, and might do so again.

And the real problem is not the tyranny of the majority, but the tyranny of the minority.

As far as they were concerned, universal voting rights were obviously out of the question. The enslavers who wrote the Constitution had no intention of giving up the institution of slavery.

That also shows how dishonest they were about wanting to protect the rights and the freedom of the poor. Their wealth depended on oppression.

But your conclusion from this is better than any I've seen before:

How would they win popular support if they put right there, in the Constitution itself for everyone to see, that the majority of Americans would have no voice and that “we the people” didn’t really mean “all the people”?

So the phrasing of the Constitution was really to disguise the fact that it was only meant to serve the rich. The poor were conned.

When the above was ratified, Senators were chosen by state legislators. The 17th Amendment changed that. Under the 17th Amendment, Senators are elected by the people.

I think this was actually a mistake. Because while they're elected by the people, the representation of those people is extremely unequal. Some senators represent 50 million people, others not even 1 million. Instead, the 17th amendment should have limited the power of the senate to only deciding which issues are state issues and which are federal issues, and not get a vote on the actual laws themselves, because the senate doesn't really represent the people.

Or they should have fixed the representation of the people in the senate.