> But now an extremist group, the Alternative for Germany or AfD, may become that nation’s biggest political party,

It is is supported by most, it is, by definition, not extremist. The word has a meaning, and it was not "something I happen to dislike"

For a long time now, I've hoped to see some kind of system emerge where law was written in a publicly accessible git-like system. I know some places are trending this way, but it would be so good to see with commits with relevant information and cases attached to each "push." I wonder if this could be a better and more open way for public consensus an ultimately enforcement, but the latter is always the most difficult part. And not only due to corruption, but external and unplanned factors too. This is where branching would be cool to see, where special cases are addressed. It would be a future historian's wet dream too lol. I wonder if this system, modeled on open source collaboration, would naturally cause a more horizontal strucure with better equity.

We don't need a "new theory of democracy" - we need to actually follow the Constitution we already have.

The author's concerns about majority rule leading to bad outcomes? That's exactly why the founders created a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. They knew about mob rule and designed safeguards against it.

The Constitution already handles these problems:

Contradictory voting patterns: Federalism lets states make their own choices. If Kentucky votes against Medicaid expansion, that's their call - other states can do differently and we can all see what works.

Demagogues: Separation of powers stops any president from becoming a dictator. Congress controls spending, courts check unconstitutional acts, and the First Amendment protects counter-speech.

Protecting rights: The Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment protect individuals even when majorities disagree.

Rather than throwing out 250 years of constitutional law, maybe we should just enforce what we have? The framework works when we actually use it. The real problem isn't that democracy has "failed" - it's that we've stopped following our own rules.

The author struggles to understand opposition voters. Instead of attempting to empathize, he demonizes. Instead of attempting to understand their rationalizations, he concludes that they are irrational. He accuses the opposition media outlets of being propaganda.

Of course, from his perspective, his political ideals and motives are purely altruistic, rational and high minded. His own publication and aligned partisans never engage in misleading propaganda techniques. The problems are all due to the 'other' tribe. Those deplorable people who are unable to make the correct choices.

No matter where you are politically, the problems in this approach should be apparent.

There are reasonable arguments to be made against the premises of democracy. Do nine out of ten people have a "right" to redistribute the tenth person's ice cream cone? When the state ineptly delivers each a spoonful of warm, melted ice cream, will that be the outcome the voters chose, or a fraudulent bait-and-switch?

The author doesn't address any of that. He drives by smugly while hurling partisan accusations out of the window.

There is a difference between supporting the stated aim of a policy (infrastructure, healthcare) and the implementation. Biden’s “infrastructure” bill was just an insane grift to all the Democrat special interests, see Ezra Klein talking about the broadband funding.

This is comparing push polling “are you in favor of a free money tree” with voting.