> I think insisting that they always be at odds with each other is unrealistic and goes against the fundamental idea that people have a right to form a government that represents them.
Sure, but then there's no longer meaningful separation of powers and you've converged on a UK-like system where a majority, no matter how narrow, conveys all the power - but with a politicised court (UK SC is still generally agreed to be nonpolitical).
It's a really serious problem for the US that lots of very important rights like, say, interracial marriage in Loving v Virginia, came about as court cases despite and often against the will of the voters.
Sure, but then there's no longer meaningful separation of powers and you've converged on a UK-like system where a majority, no matter how narrow, conveys all the power - but with a politicised court (UK SC is still generally agreed to be nonpolitical).
It's a really serious problem for the US that lots of very important rights like, say, interracial marriage in Loving v Virginia, came about as court cases despite and often against the will of the voters.