You simply dismiss all the evidence that doesn't conform to your view and cite one chapter of one book. I mean the anti-federalists were commonly called "democrats" by the pro-constitution forces, which reveals all you really need to know about how the latter felt about popular government. I gave you ample sources but it's incredibly typical of you to ignore what is inconvenient. Most of those sources are contemporary work on the subject. It's a subject that has been exhaustively studied and very little of it conforms to your view. Yours is the revisionist view. The primary source records show very clearly the motivation behind wanting a "strong national government". They didn't just want it for its own sake.
It wasn't just the convention that wasn't democratic. The ratification wasn't democratic. Even hagiographic defenders of the founders admit that a shady and underhanded process was undertaken to make sure the document was ratified.
The federalists /pro-constitution forces most certainly did not want to increase popular participation. Read the federalist arguments. They were entirely predicated on the folly of direct participation. Fisher Ames makes that clear when he says that democracy is a volcano which contains the fiery seeds of its own destruction. Madison was one of the most forceful opponents of popular participation. Read Federalist No. 10 and No. 63. You simply dismiss this as "anti-majoritarianism". No. He criticizes popular participation. Look carefully at what Madison says about the problem with the House of Lords. He claimed that even the House of Lords was vulnerable to the populism ("encroachments") of the House of Commons, so therefore we have nothing to fear from a Senate not elected by the people. The entirety of Federalist No. 63 is a warning of the 'defects' of popular control of government.
"To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind? What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next."
Suffice to say, your cursory and unspecific statements about how the constitution supposedly expanded popular participation doesn't have a leg to stand on. Neither by the secondary literature not by the primary sources themselves.