> How is any of it undemocratic ? If people elect candidates who are anti abortion and pro surveillance, then being democratic means those laws should happen.

See, this is why the US is supposed to be ruled by a constitution, rather than just be a democracy. The constitution says that there are things you can't do, even if you have a majority (unless you have enough of a majority to amend the constitution).

Now, granted, that's been eroded under the last few presidents, with (probably) worse to come under Trump. But this is why it matters that we have a constitution that limits what a president can do.

If people elect candidates who are pro-totalitarian surveillance state and limitation of individual freedoms, then being democratic means those laws should happen as well?

Basically if people elect candidates that want to kill democracy then the democratic thing would be to let it die?

When people in the West talk about "democracy", what they usually really mean is "liberal democracy".