I’ve written about this before, here.
The old monarchies are as much about a geographic region as they are about a people. There is a strong identification of people and place. It’s the king of France, not the king of the French, though both are correct. The patriotic song God Save the Queen (or King), is as much about the land as the people who happen to live there. A monarchy is a geocracy, we could say.
A democracy, in contrast, is about people, with their location secondary. There is an openness about the boundaries of place, or even the limits of the electorate, in a democracy. The more people, the merrier, as in universal suffrage. Political liberals (or progressives) emphasize democracy. The more liberal U.S. Democratic Party supports more open immigration, and has the best support in large population centers.
Conservatives are the heirs to monarchy and landed gentry, while supporting democracy. But what is there between monarchy and democracy, the land and the people? In earlier times there was suffrage based on land ownership, a form of limited democracy. Nowadays, there is a division of population based on the land, such as what separates every nation. The U.S. Senate is based first on geography, and second on democracy. The combination of geography first and democracy second could be called geodemocracy. The more conservative U.S. Republican Party has greater support in the Senate and in more rural states.
The U.S. Constitution combines democracy and geodemocracy. The House of Representatives is a democratic institution, but the Senate, as noted, is a geodemocratic institution. The Electoral College for the election of the President preserves this combination. In this way the Constitution is a centrist document, combining elements of conservatism and liberalism.