That seems so, and the comparison apt. The states at least had to develop governmental structures in compliance and coordination with federal law, and the constituents largely shared the same national reference frame. Government in each European nation developed with far more independence of conditions in surrounding countries, which were often very different. Hence France spent centuries developing one of the most autocratic monarchies in Europe as Britain and Austria developed two of the least autocratic right next door.


The validity of the complaint matters a great deal to whether we or anyone should credit it; in this case, that means we should not. There is a good argument for Norway using leveling seats and extra seats for specific regions (they do not repeat a re-apportionment nightmare in 50 states each decade) to distribute power and prevent individual tyrants. There is an argument for Britain doing so by essentially making the Speaker of the House also President (though if anything that just unwisely concentrates power.) There is NO argument America should elect the president by direct national popular vote like Britain, because neither it nor any European country of which I am aware does so.