What if I postulate a democracy where a group of people were enslaved but gave their owners 3/5 of a census credit for population weight. Since representatives are apportioned based on population weight, this means that the votes of freemen in areas with high slave ownership are effectively worth more than the votes of freemen in areas with low slave ownership. That's a ridiculous proposal. Why would voters in low slave owning areas agree to it? Yet that is the actual, real behavior in the early USA.
Many times when people point out problems with the frame of the question, what we are doing is pointing out weak areas in the background.
A simple solution to this problem of disproportionate representation would be for the North to secede from the South. Then the North wouldn't be subject to the South's whims. But that's not what really happened. The House of Representatives was overwhelmingly controlled not by the South with its disproportionate representation but by the North.
Why was there a 3/5 rule? In the original thirteen colonies, seven were northern and six were southern. The seven also had more free population. So if the natural rule of only counting free population would have held, then the North would have held control of both houses in Congress. The compromise gave the South control of the House and the North control of the Senate. Later that would switch, the South would use control of the executive and an even split in the Senate to block undesirable legislation.
Knowing the historical background and actual facts of the case would allow people to give realistic analysis of what was going to happen. Without that, people would be likely to give the wrong path forward. Instead of having the South secede, they'd have the North secede. Expecting good answers for badly framed questions is unrealistic.
In theory, these things should be handled via comments, but in practice, comments simply don't allow enough explanation.