I'm not sure what link you're referring to, but emphasizing the role of the states over the federal government is textbook anti-federalism.
The link to the Federalist papers that explained their thought process in creating the electoral college.
In either case, that is an over-simplification of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.
The main drive of the Federalists was the economy, that is combining the 13 individual debts to one large federal debt, and then just paying off the interest in order to buy allies abroad...mainly the people that we loaned money towards, but others that would see what we were doing and loan us more in the future to have that guaranteed source of income.
It was, however, the Anti-Federalists that pushed for a Bill of Rights to be added to the constitution in a trade-off for an executive branch, a Constitution, and executive appointed SCOTUS.
You're right, in that the Anti-Federalists were concerned about the Federal Government having too much power. But that shouldn't be confused for State Power v Populace Power.
But it was the Federalists themselves that were concerned that a dictator would arise through the populace as easily as one would arise through Federal Power--a concern that the Anti-Federalists didn't have. Because of this, it was the Federalists that pushed the hardest to counter-balance state and populace power.
It was an over-simplification because describing the Anti-Federalists as "State Power" is a lot easier to explain than "populace power" and mainly because their belief was that you could obtain more populace power by giving more control to the states as it's still the closest form of direct democracy.
When you look at the Federalist position, they already had a direct populace power in the form of the House...they wanted to counter-balance that and avoid the potential of a populace dictator by giving the states representation in the legislative branch...and creating the electoral college to prevent people like, say Burr, from making himself king.