Not ratifying the constitution would have been the better choice. Having a federal system where the sates are supreme makes is more beneficial to the people; having a strong central government however, leaves room for domination and control. The federalist supported the constitution and wanted a strong central government. As an anti-federalist the main focus of interest is the protecting the people's rights and limiting government control.
Federalist supported the constitution, and wanted immediate ratification. They favored limiting state power, and believed that a strong central government was needed to protect the country. The Federalist's response to the anti-Federalist claim that a Bill of Rights should be introduced was that it would be dangerous. If a right was not listed, what was stopping the government from violating that law? The Federalist figured it would be best if no specific law was listed.
Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the constitution. Most Anti-Federalists believed that a somewhat stronger central government was needed, but for the most part favored a federal system where the states were supreme. Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the constitution because there was no bill of rights, they wanted the rights of the people to be documented, and limit government power to some degree. The anti-federalist also believed that congress and the executive branch held too much power, and they feared that people of wealth would have the opportunity to obtain more power than the government itself.
The Federalist papers contained many arguments supporting the ratification of the constitution. One of the quotes includes, Federalist #10, "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party." I this…...