what the United States may have looked like had the Anti-Federalists "won" their points in the ratification debate and the writing of the Constitution

If the Anti-Federalists "won" their points in the ratification debate and in the writing of the Constitution, the United States would have undoubtedly looked quite different. First of all, the individual states would have had their own powerful, individual legislature, executive, and judicial branches of government, "under the direction and controul of a supreme federal head for certain defined national purposes" (Roland, 2003: "Brutus": Essay #1). As a consequence, the states would have been able to impose their own taxes, duties, and excises and to go after those who failed to pay their debts to the states. In addition, the states would have had the power "of laying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; of regulating trade, raising and supporting armies, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, instituting courts, and other general powers" (Roland, 2003: "Brutus": Essay #1). The judicial power of the states would have held precedence over an "inferior court that derived their authority from the United States" (Roland, 2003: "Brutus": Essay #1). Basically, while realizing the importance of having a well-established federal government, the states would have had many more powers and more of a say as to how their state was operated.

In addition, the individual states would have held more responsibility in matters pertaining to protection and defence of the community. For example, according to an Anti-federalist essay penned by "Brutus", protection and defence "ought to be left to the state governments to provide for the protection and defence of the citizen against the hand of private violence, and the wrongs done or attempted by individuals to each other-protection and defence against the murderer, the robber, the thief, the cheat, and the unjust person, is to be derived from the respective state governments" (Roland, 2003: "Brutus": Essay #7). This way the general government and the individual state governments would be held responsible for securing private and public justice, respectively.
Moreover, according to another Anti-Federalist essay penned by "Cato" on November 22, 1787, "[t]he most general objections to the first article [of the new government], are that biennial elections for representatives are a departure from the safe democratical principles-of annual ones--that the number of representatives are too few; that the appointment and principles of increase are unjust; that no attention has been paid to either the numbers or property in each state in forming the senate; that the mode in which they are appointed and their duration, will lead to the establishment of an aristocracy" (Roland, 2003: "Cato"). Therefore, the country would have had, like our textbook points out, "smaller electoral districts", more "frequent elections", and there also would be "a large unicameral legislature to provide for greater class and occupational representation" (O'Connor & Sabato, 2009, p. 54).
Finally, if the Anti-Federalists would have ultimately "won", the military would have consisted of "state militias rather than a national force" (O'Connor & Sabato, 2009, p. 55), which to be honest, could have caused many issues, such as raising the question of who would be ultimately liable for defending the nation as a whole against outside forces. In addition, these state militias would have further alienated each state from the next and thereby the nation would have been slowly pulled apart, which like what would happen less than 100 years later, the country could have been thrown into a civil war.

O'Connor, K. & Sabato, L.J. (2009). American government: Roots and reform (2009 ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.

Roland, J. (2003, December 20). Anti-Federalist Papers. EDSITEment.

The Anti-Federalists were a group of individuals who opposed the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in its original form. They expressed concerns about the centralization of power and the potential for an oppressive government. If the Anti-Federalists had won their points and made changes to the Constitution, the United States might have looked different in several ways:

1. Increased states' rights: The Anti-Federalists emphasized the importance of protecting the rights and powers of individual states. If they had succeeded, the Constitution might have incorporated stronger language or amendments explicitly limiting federal power and strengthening state sovereignty.

2. Weaker federal government: The Anti-Federalists opposed a strong centralized government and favored a more decentralized system. They advocated for greater power in the hands of state governments, potentially leading to a weaker federal government with limited authority over the states.

3. Bill of Rights: One of the main objections raised by the Anti-Federalists was the absence of a specific list of individual rights and protections in the original Constitution. If they had won, the Constitution might have included a Bill of Rights from the beginning, addressing concerns about personal liberties and freedoms.

4. Direct representation: The Anti-Federalists pushed for a more direct form of representation to ensure that the government was more accountable to the people. They criticized the Constitution's provision for indirect representation through an electoral college. If the Anti-Federalists had succeeded, there might have been a different mechanism for electing the president or other government officials, potentially involving more direct popular votes.

5. Economic policies: The Anti-Federalists also opposed some of the economic provisions in the Constitution, such as the power to levy taxes and regulate commerce. If they had won, the federal government might have had fewer economic powers, allowing the states to have more control and autonomy in managing their economies.

It is important to note that the Anti-Federalists did not ultimately succeed in preventing the ratification of the Constitution. However, their concerns and demands led to the addition of the Bill of Rights, which addressed many of their apprehensions about individual liberties.