Suppose they did support and voted for their representative, and that representative voted against ratification, but the legislature still voted to ratify. Does the ratification then meaningfully represent all residents of the state?

I don't think so, but I can see how others might take a different perspective here. It doesn't really matter to the point I was originally making, though - if 40% of the population can rewrite the constitution over the heads of the other 60%, it's still badly broken.

>Suppose they did support and voted for their representative, and that representative voted against ratification, but the legislature still voted to ratify. Does the ratification then meaningfully represent all residents of the state?

Yes. That is the way some representative democracies work. Your representative may not have voted for something that passed. Your representative may not have been voted for by you.

I understand wanting changes to it, but you still are properly and meaningfully represented in my view.

>I don't think so, but I can see how others might take a different perspective here. It doesn't really matter to the point I was originally making, though - if 40% of the population can rewrite the constitution over the heads of the other 60%, it's still badly broken.

It is only broken if you think people are supposed to be making the decisions. In the past some state legislatures would vote for the president not the people. Prior to the 17th amendment the states were represented by the senators. The states are the ones who decided many of these things, not the people. There has been a shift in the US pushing more and more for the people to directly have more power, but that isn't the way the system was set up. It isn't broken when you think about it from that perspective. The people don't change the constitution, the states do. The states are the ones who formed the Union so they are the ones who can change it. The US is quite unique in that perspective.