This is true. We have a democratic republic rather than a plain democracy, because the founders were (rightly) concerned that plain democracy produces a tyrannical majority, and wanted to create a free society which would only impose government authority when there was broad-based and widespread agreement.
Indeed, the founders cared so much about this that they wrote into the Constitution a guarantee not of a democratic form of government for the States, but a republican one
U.S. const. Art 4 Sec 4:
> The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
In theory, this guarantee could be satisfied by entirely nondemocratic governments, so long as they were republics. Courts have not really tackled too many of the details of this clause over the years, primarily on the grounds that the courts largely feel that they are unable to offer remedies. (https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/inte...)
The purpose of those structures is to prevent a razor thin majority from going off half cocked and doing something there isn't sufficient support for.
I think you need to take a look at federal controlled substances policy. Even with resounding majorities in favor of various degrees of changing things in a particular direction the small steps that everyone can agree on still don't get done. The incentive structure for implementing popular change is broken and the difference between 50.0001% and 60% doesn't change that.
I'm not at all arguing that those structures are delivering value in their present formulation, just that they are present, they are non-democratic, and that was intentional (so arguments predicated on raw democracy are either disingenuous or misguided).
I think I would argue that the simplest first cuts to untying the current knot are to rethink the whole "legal bribery of elected officials" thing and find a reasonable way to enable multiple parties so that coalitions can align along a more complex set of needs than two sets of (absolutist) wedge issues.
Sometimes I don’t. The climate doesn’t care about your vote or belief system. So, you have to work around democracy. Play to win, the stakes are too high not to.
They already are. What do you think this is? They spent decades to enable this, they’ve said so publicly. Mitch McConnell’s book is even called “The Long Game.” They are knowingly, actively subverting democracy for their own ends.
Each party's advocates say "the other side has been playing to win rules and democracy be damned for decades, and if we don't start ignoring the rules and playing dirty, they'll kill us all".
Each side claims to love democracy but to be willing to destroy it only because doing so is necessary to protect them from the Enemy.
I think that maybe most people don't actually care about democracy, they just want to win the war.
I want a habitable planet for my kids. If you don’t believe in climate change, there is simply no value in engaging. The science is proven by scientists who do science things. It’s like someone not believing in gravity. “But I have my own opinion!” They believe their opinions carry the same weight as facts. You’re just lighting precious time and effort on fire needlessly, banging your head against the brick wall expecting the brick wall to critically think with factual information.
Voters overwhelmingly want regulation on climate change. 41 senators representing roughly 22% of voters don't.
> Sounds like maybe you don't believe in democracy
if you're going to make snide remarks you better be accurate in your claims.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/09/americans-l...