That is also a form of corruption though. Voter sentiment shouldn't be prioritised over protecting democracy and the constitution.

I'm always confused when I see people say (to paraphrase) "We need to protect democracy so the hell with what the voters think!".

How exactly does that logic work?

In the same way when you sit down to play a boardgame with someone and they draw extra cards, fudge die rolls, and flip over the table when a turn goes against them: they're no longer playing the agreed-on game at that point, and you and the other players don't have to accept their behavior as part of the play.

There is a baseline set of rules (in the USA we have the Constitution) for how the game works. Like a person's freedom to swing their arm, a voter's freedom on what to vote for must stop at the limit of the other voters' rights. The "Tyranny of the Majority" is a related concept as well.

Well, yes that is why the US is a constitutional republic.

It's just that phrasing seems hilariously and ironically out of wack.

It's as if some people think they know better then unwashed masses so they should be in charge regardless of sentiment. Ok, fine, maybe they do, but that isn't called "democracy".

It's called representative democracy. The job of representatives is to know what they're doing on the behalf of voters, not to cater to their every whim.