They warned of tyranny of the majority, instability and violence from a too-powerful government (thus checks and balances), foreign influence in domestic affairs due to a weak government, and as you mentioned partisanship.

> instability and violence from a too-powerful government (thus checks and balances)

This is not the argument of the federalist papers. They argue for a government with powers commensurate to its objects. They discuss at great length the dangers of a government being too weak, namely that it forces a series of usurpations because its the only way to get anything done.

> They warned of tyranny of the majority

Nor is this the argument of the federalist papers, for much the same reasons above. Madison and Hamilton are quite explicit that majority rule is the only way to have a functional government, and that the alternative will only lead to dysfunction and the need to seize more power to break the resulting logjams.

Gobsmackingly wrong. Federalist 10, one of the best-known, explicitly talks about how factions can form alliances that could work against the public interest and ultimately infringe upon the rights of others.

From Federalist 10

"The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of faction cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principal, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote."

Madison goes on to discuss the difficulty of the situation in which faction encompasses the majority, which is likely what you're referring to. But he is VERY explicit that majority rule is one of the primary weapons against faction, and the discussion of the failures of articles of confederation and historical leagues and confederacies that occupies multiple papers makes clear that lack of majority rule is one of the great enablers of faction.

Brandolini's law in full effect here.

Remember the historical context here. When the constitution was proposed, the United States was operating under the articles of confederation. The articles created an incredibly weak central government that could not raise a standing army or even impose its own taxation (only request funding from the states). The Constitution represented a significant strength, anything of the central/federal government.

If anything, we currently have tyranny of the minority. Presidents routinely win the election while losing the popular vote, rural areas have political power dramatically out of proportion to their size, highly unpopular policies like abortion restrictions are routinely enacted, etc.

The GP may be referring to the federal government being stronger than the states, and therefore most of the power being in Washington DC rather than in the several state capitals. They also intended more power to reside in Congress and less rule by executive order.

Bingo. Congress has dangerously abdicated much of its authority to the Executive. And the federal government as a whole has more power than it was ever granted.

The concentration of power has happened slowly over time but nonetheless it has happened. Now we have a federal government that has legal authority to demand compliance on a range of issues that it doesn't have Constitutional authority to demand.