Final answer:
The colonial governments in British North America had forms of representative democracy and self-governance, but were not more democratic than today's U.S. government. The narrow electorate and evolving concept of democracy make this statement false.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that the colonial governments in the British colonies in North America in the 1700s were much more democratic than the U.S. government today is false. While colonial governments did possess forms of representative democracy and self-governance, it is not accurate to claim they were more democratic than the current U.S. system which includes a broader franchise and more institutions for check and balances. Colonial assemblies were indeed influential and sometimes even overpowered the colonial governors who held the right to veto legislation, but they were elected by a much smaller, property-owning segment of the population, excluding women, most African Americans, and others. Additionally, the concept of democracy itself has evolved to include a wider range of rights and participatory mechanisms than were available in colonial times.
As the colonies began adopting constitutions during the Revolutionary War, they opted for republics over monarchies, but not necessarily full democracies as we understand them today. And although many colonists were self-sufficient, they were not completely isolated from the need to import goods from Britain, making the statement about economic self-sufficiency false. Political tensions in the colonies often stemmed from the push and pull between the governors and the assemblies, and while this did foster a unique form of self-government, it was not necessarily more democratic than today's U.S. system.