> It is true that to recover its citizens’ loyalty, our democracy needs to curb the power of unelected elites who seek only to pad their influence and line their pockets. But it is also true that to protect its citizens’ lives and promote their prosperity, our democracy needs institutions that are, by their nature, deeply elitist. This, to my mind, is the great dilemma that the United States—and other democracies around the world—will have to resolve if they wish to survive in the coming decades.

I think I'd harken back to an older view of the conflict: large concentrations of wealth (the natural result of our economic system, unregulated) are in direct opposition to the principle of "one man, one vote."

America doesn't have a democracy problem--it has a republic problem. Clearly, a republic is failing the people, mostly out of its own design. The founding fathers' ideas may have worked in the ages of slavery, and Jim Crow, where exploitation actually led to great wealth creation, but they do not work now. They work great at keeping the people down, in check, and out of politics, just as the founders designed. Really, the main problem here is that Americans stupidly think that they live in a democracy when this has never been the case. Obviously, America is not a democracy. It's always been a republic and people are now realizing just how oppressive a republic ruled by bribes from the elite is, now that the main concerns are less about oppressing minorities but simply about the survival of the majority, something that is no longer guaranteed. Let's face it, American government isn't about to change soon, so it'd be in our best interest for the people who think we live in a democracy to realize that we don't. After all, if you don't think you have a problem, a solution is impossible.

I'm not sure the first example where the town failed to buy out a bad water company supports author's argument.

The article hinted that the company was doing something malicious that on the voting day, "locals who had toiled on the issue for years noticed many newcomers", who eventually voted the idea down. It almost sound like those newcomers were brought in by the company to influence votes in its favor.

But in my experience with condo boards and other small democratic organizations, there are always a small but vocal group who tend to run the show, while the majority just carry on with their lives without paying too much attention to the local politics. That does not mean those people have no opinion on major issues, and their opinions tend to be revealed at those kind of major votes.

It sucks if you worked for years to get your ideas through, only to be voted down by the majority. But is this really a failure of democracy?

Never has been.

I think it is actually, you see, the elections and such.

The author makes sense initially but towards the end seems to be attacking American institutions like the Supreme court. That was odd.

America was founded on a messy system where not everyone got what they wanted. It was always a compromise.

However, this messy system did bring us out of slavery into the modern era. Now though one of the last abominations of this messy system is causing most of the issues in the republic. I wonder why the author does not touch the subject of "Electoral College".

The "Electoral College" elected both "George Bush" and "Trump" subverting the will of the majority. The first president led us into an illegal war that enriched his corporate buddies. The second one will be judged by history.

In my opinion, until we get rid of the "Electoral College" America will never be a true democracy.