Why did the founding fathers reject democracy?

Answer 1

Because the founders of this nation knew that "democracy" would lead to a tyranny of the majority voting cash for itself and electing corrupt representatives willing to hand out more cash in exchange for votes.

Answer 2

Rather than use bullet points to explain this complicate answer to the question, here is a narrative that provides the basics involved here. Yes, there are a number of complications and this is not a text book answer as there is no room for one. The narrative is needed to explain at the end of it the "why no democracy " answer. Additionally, and it's quite possible, this is not law school, it would take extra time, so this explanation does not quote various article and clauses in the US Constitution that takes an attorney to understand as part of the explanation.

In actuality, democracy in 1789, meant that there would be no Senate. The Senate provides for 2 senators from each State, regardless of the population in any State. Now the House of Representatives provides for the number of States' representatives in the House based on the population of the State. In an example of what means, here is an example of how a majority of voters's representatives can vote for a bill to become a law. ( No bill becomes a law until signed by the US President). Let it also be said, that the process in the House is complicated, however for the purpose of this example we'll ignore that. Bottom line is that a majority of the peoples' representatives are in favor of the bill and it is passed. Here we are about as close to democracy as it gets because the representatives don't take public opinion poll in their respective States on every issue and bill they vote on. Thus, it becomes a democracy only among the elected officials, not the majority of voters in their States. The peoples' remedy is that Representatives must run for re-election every two years. Giving them the opportunity to vote out of office elected officials who fail to please the people who elected them.The bill is now passed over to the Senate. It has already been established that each State has two senators. Let's say out of the 100 senators, 2, per State, the majority of senators, from States with small populations, vote against the bill. (often the Senate & the House work out a compromise to settle differences and thus pass the bill) That is not always the case.

Then, there is a situation where it's clear that a bill that can have with wide public support and the support of their House majority, can fail, and the bill is killed by a body that does not fully represent the will of the people. ( in so many words)

The end of Democracy does not stop with the Senate however. That's because, assuming the bill is passed by the Senate, it does not become a law unless the President sign it into law. The president has the power to veto the bill if the president believes the bill is damaging to the country. ( that's an opinion of course ). Yes and there are certain types of vetoes but that's not a factor in this simple explanation.

Once the bill is vetoed, and often the president will inform the Congress what needs to be changed, it is up to Congress whether they will alter the bill so the president will sign it, or have a 2/3 majority to over ride the president's veto.

It still does not end there. That's because the third part of the Federal government, which by its composition is called a republic, has the Supreme Court to be dealt with. The law is fine until there comes a time ( many complications here which I'll skip ) when the Supreme Court nullifies the law because it violates the US Constitution, which by ironically has been set up so the government to not a pure democracy. Let me interject here, that no "democracies" that exist in this world, lest we go far off the track.

So, question asks "why did the founding fathers reject democracy" ? As an aside, "reject" is a loaded word with a negative connotation. The republic they created had a positive purpose. Next to most governments of the times, it was indeed a work of art ( authors opinion )

In a pure democracy, if a majority of the "voters" decide to end the freedom of the press, and make it policy that an official "body" will report the news, it's clear that this will lead to a "disaster". When a vote by the "designated" democratic voters decides to create a State religion,

tyranny reigns. It is a fact that the old political science adage of "people vote with their feet" is very true.

The republic, as written in the US Constitution, sought to limit the powers of a strong central government. It's three part balance of powers structure, was designed to, in the best voting way possible, to fairly handle the affairs of the nation that individual States could or should not handle by themselves. Thus, foreign treaties were handled by the central government. Wars would be carried out by the central government. The individual freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution such as the freedom to practice one's religion, the freedom to orderly protest, the writ of habeas corpus, the guards against cruel and unusual punishment, the right to vote, and other measures would ideally be part of a "democracy". However, as we have seen, democracies, can negate the rights of minorities and other "disasters".

The Republic thus created was done so by strong State governments that made it clear that powers not granted to the central government were left to the individual States. Generally speaking, the closer a people are to their closest governing body, the more responsive that body is to the will of the people. ( assuming they participate )

It's clear the the United States has never had and never will have a "perfect" government in which everyone can agree is the best one. The US has evolved and continues to evolve.

No nation has a perfect government structure.