A constitutional republic is just as prone to tyranny as any other such system. The American republic was modeled after the Roman Republic, which not only regularly produced tyrants, but also produced the Roman Empire.
The stated reasons the Founding Fathers were largely opposed to more direct forms of democracy had to do with their desire to ensure that their oligarchy of white landowning men could retain control of the direction of the nation, rather than letting the plebes weigh in. It was explicitly to defend their particular flavor of tyranny that they instituted systems like the Electoral College, to overrule the popular vote whenever they deemed it against the interests of that oligarchy.
And only the first of those is a valid statement.You say they enjoy disproportionate electoral power. They say they like having at least some voice in it.
They already have outsize influence despite their undersized electorate through the Senate. And they still get to vote in the presidential election. So the claim that they just want "some voice" is a lie. They have a voice. They have always had a voice. They want more say than others, and to devalue the votes of those they disagree with. To manipulate the outcome of the election in their favor, in short.
Oh, stuff it up your pants. That's a dishonest false equivalence and you know it. You can't possibly think this was a justifiable counter argument.I thought we believed in making sure that the minority still had their say? You know, protecting the minority against being run over and controlled by the majority.