That's one alternative, but not the only one. Another alternative is for the government to not have the power to tyrannize in the first place. As the saying goes, the problem is not that politicians can be bought but that they have something valuable to sell.

> the majority of the country wants universal healthcare and legalized cannabis

I don't think this is true. I think vocal minorities want these things.

If there isn't broad consensus across the country to pass an amendment then states can do it independently. There is no reason a state can't have single payer healthcare, except that they don't want to pay for it and want to just add the cost to the national debt.

States can, indeed do it independently. There’s at least 3 states with a public option

All federal welfare policies can be enacted under the commerce clause and/or the general welfare clause.

Being anti-majority doesn't mean pro-minority.

It is about decreasing the weight of merely being in the majority as an input feature to optimal decision making. It is protecting against pseudo-relevance majority can pose as an overemphasized decision making strategy. This doesn't mean all ideas that manifest as majority is irrelevant, not at all, it is protecting against the false positives.

Mind you a lack of steamrolling with majority alone forces a downstream integration of opponent thoughts.

Think it like a collective intelligence architecture that is trying to make sure we don't get stuck in local optima.

I’m amenable tot he notion that there should be some guardrails on simple majoritarianism, but it shouldn’t follow that all anti majoritarian rules are good.

Should there be more things off-limits? Should there be less? Intelligent people could disagree, but the off-limits category already exists and there is a process to change what is in it.