Other than the fact that voting was extremely limited (white males if I remember correctly). I remember reading that the senate used to be chosen by the state governments and that the system was so corrupt that it was basically an old boys club on who got the position next. Was this the case?
There's a historiographical debate about the extent of democracy in revolutionary America.
On the one side, republicanism (small r) seemed pretty sweet: government is really a social contract between people as a method to foster virtue in society (through able representatives). republicanism (again small r) implied an inclusive vision of citizenship and governance.
On the other side, that inclusive dream actually benefited middle class white men and excluded almost everyone else. Governmental participation required land ownership and economic independence: the idea was that material success was one marker of a mind fit for self rule, and therefore worthy for political participation (this is also implied as whiteness, a prerequisite for citizenship from the 1790 Naturalization Act). Social networks and reputation most certainly mattered for obtaining political office.
Democracy, as a lived political ideal, seemed to come into full force in the nineteenth century, symbolized as the age of Jackson.
I'm not sure if that answers your specific question, but that's where the historiography is at, as far as I see it.