What is the difference

I’ll preface by stating that I’m not an American.

I think society is too interconnected and any decision in any area could be argued to have an effect on the entire population. I also think it’s good to have competent people in positions of leadership. I don’t think that most people are capable of choosing who is well suited for a given task. In that sense I somewhat agree with what you said here “people affected by a given decision (and only those people) are the ones who make the decision” though I believe I’m arriving at this conclusion from a different perspective than you. I would also point out that in both cases it is inherently less democratic than the current us government (as in less people are given more power) though I think this is partially desirable since a true perfect democracy won’t select who is most capable, but who is more popular.

Why are these things anti democratic? If you want to go down this path you first need to establish a clear definition for what is and isn’t anti democratic. Is a doctor anti democratic because he wasn’t elected by popular vote? The supreme court is appointed by the current sitting (democratically elected) president. Should every government position require a nation wide popular vote? Is that really the only way to have a democracy?

Uhhhh, I don’t think a document that outlines the basis for a type of democracy is anti democratic. There are plenty of things wrong with it though, maybe talk about those parts instead to build a stronger case against the constitution