Broadening the franchise made the rich ideal of liberty unaffordable

Evidence

Perhaps this explains in some part why the ideal of non-domination lost its place in the work of Bentham and Paley and, later, in the work of those who would have claimed the new name of liberal. As these thinkers enlarged the compass of their concern to include more and more people as citizens, it must have seemed less and less realistic to stick with the rich old ideal of freedom as non-domination. Much better to thin out the ideal of freedom and to orientate the state by the light of the new, modernist ideal, or by the light of some other goal entirely. Even securing the greatest happiness of the greatest number— the goal shared by Bentham and Paley—would have looked much more tractable and attractive than securing freedom as nondomination; it was taken to require the reduction of many forms of interference—and, in those ways, the furthering of freedom as noninterference—but it would not necessarily have seemed to require that no one be subject to the arbitrary will of another. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 264