I think we are talking about two different things. I’m talking about individual policies, and I think you are talking about elected representatives. I do agree that percentages of representatives should match the population, but votes on individual policies should always match what the majority of the population wants.

“Also majorities are slow to change, and it’s simply dishonest (and destabilizing) to have one’s vote weigh less depending on which group they are part of.”

It doesn’t. Just because you are a part of the minority doesn’t make your vote count less. It just means there are more people who disagree with you than agree.

I’d say countries that devolve into dictatorship aren’t due to too much democracy but due to weak constitutional protections.

Right now in the US we are in danger of devolving into a dictatorship because of the extra weight added to minority votes.

Edit: and by minority votes I’m talking about policies with less than 50% support.

That’s a bit more than just math. When considering a policy, I don’t tend to take into account where the different parties stand. It’s better to think for yourself and not resort to tribalism. With that in mind I do think the majority should win 100% of the time. It has been insanely annoying here in the US how some policies have had popular support for years if not decades yet go nowhere because of small interest groups who use cheap tricks like the fillibuster and the electoral college to ensure the will of the minority wins out. I do acknowledge the danger of the tyranny of the majority, but I think protections against it should be provided by the rights outlined in a strong constitution.

Still better than every other option.

I don’t know much about investing, but i wonder if it would it be a good time to short those companies?