[colechristensen]

What are the qualifications to label something as "antidemocratic"?

There are many separate interests in a large country and thinking the only morally correct government is strictly majority rule is definitely a matter of debate.

The founders made it the way it is to prevent tyranny of the majority which was a major topic in political philosophy. You likewise wouldn't want to live in a place absolutely controlled by the 50% +1.

Geographic areas with lower population densities getting higher representation makes sense, interests aren't equally distributed nor are they distributed just to areas of high density. If you don't do this you risk power concentrations where people have to leave lower density places for higher density places if they don't go along with the majority opinion because they don't get representation and get disadvantaged by the majority.

People tend to like this when it benefits them and hate it when it doesn't, but there is good sense in it, especially when nationally the party split is nearly always very close to even.

[rtkwe]

It replaces population proportional representation with representation based on political subdivisions completely separated from demo- part of democracy. It's even worse with the current filibuster where representatives of ~3% of the population (20 senators from the lowest 10 population states + 1) can block everything legislative going through the Senate.