Strawman. I never claimed or suggested what are you asserting.

The design appears to be working well looking over the 240 years since the US' Constitution was ratified. A broad consensus of the states, _not of the people in the US as a whole_, is required to effect large scale, national changes.

The intent is to avoid tyranny by the majority. And you don't even need a majority, depending on how things would have been written. If each state gets a vote proportional to it's population, you could have something pass with substantially less than a majority of the national population, just by convincing a majority of the population of the states that becomes a majority to vote a given way (just shy of 25% (50% of state votes controlled by 50% of the votes in the states)).

The intent is to make it changeable, but not too changeable. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it's not beneficial if it can be changed at a whim.