[avmich]

"More democracy is not always better" is an interesting statement. I'd agree that democracy can be inefficient, but in a relatively small community contradictory demands supported by roughly equal numbers of participants is a textbook case of democracy working - you don't change things if half doesn't want it.

That federal government shouldn't be involved is also not only ideological sentiment. Current opinion is that smaller problems are better visible closely, and can be solved locally - as they are smaller - and levels of bureaucracy add significant friction.

There is a position that good democracies are local ones. Some have to delegate for common problems to higher levels, but more remote levels become less democratic - as they are more detached from people. There are counterarguments, some of them are countered in a vague "good" prefix.