They did favor Republic. That's why neither in Decleration of Independence or The constitution itslef the word Democracy is never mentioned .
They realized that a constitutional republic was the best form of government to prevent our federation from becoming a tyranny. A democracy rapidly devolves into a "tyranny of the masses" or mob rule which will quickly trample individual liberty. welll tht doesn't help
The Founding Fathers were not in favor of direct democracy. In fact, some, like Alexander Hamilton, actually favored something on the lines of a constitutional monarchy. The majority of delegates to the Constitutional Convention favored a form of democracy we know as representative democracy. You will note that the original Constitution provides only the House of Representatives to be elected by the people. The President was chosen by the Electoral College and Senators were appointed by their state legislatures. A representative democracy works better in a large nation. Direct or "true" democracy works well in small nations. An example of direct democracy today might be town meetings held in small towns in New England.
Initially, delegates were called to the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention to revise the still in-effect Articles of Confederation. After a while, however, the convention decided to scrap the Articles altogether in favor of drafting a new Constitution.
Pure democracy essentially means that majority opinion rules; the Framers feared that this would oppress the rights of minorities. So, they provided a framework for a republican form of government, consisting of elected representatives.
I would favor constitutional amendments if they enhance individual rights, promote equality, or address pressing issues in society. On the other hand, I would oppose amendments that infringe on basic rights, discriminate against certain groups, or undermine the core principles of democracy.
The idea of a complete democracy scared the framers. They feared that the majority would have complete control over every aspect of the government making things very one sided. The idea of a small republic was also somewhat nerve wrecking because after leaving such tyrannic rule they didn't think trusting government with every decision was a good idea either--elected or not! The key was to find a happy medium where the aspects of direct voter input from democracy and constituency from republic were both thrown into the equation.
They were in favor of a federal executive of more than one person.A federal executive of more than one person
republic
A republic
no
the competry is not beable
democracy had only proved to slow government and governing down and had just led to the rise of the next would-be dictator.