You know I kind of question that. I think democracy is more about rich people controlling the mechanisms through which everyone votes in order to sort of fool the masses into believing that whatever the oligarchs decide they want, is what they must've wanted, while simultaneously also being a good way for the rich to kind of gauge public interests through a periodic census and more easily manipulate them.

No, but I kid. Mostly. I think, democracy, more, in it's pure forms, is less maybe about compromise, and more about a kind of assumption that the majority of people are reasonable, and can be reasoned with, which I think is kind of a foundational assumption you need to make if you want any non-authoritarian form of society. Which isn't to really say that democracy can't be authoritarian, or employ authoritarian methods, because it can.

Most people don't believe we should get rid of all guns, or that we should be able to freely own machine guns, or even lots of regular guns. A functioning democracy would end up having some level of background checks, and mental health checks, and general procedures that you would have to go through (probably involving hands-on training classes and certifications), in order to own a gun. If you poll people, with a good poll, rather than a stupid binary dynamic single choice poll, you'll find that's what most people want. From what I've seen, the same is true for abortion, and I haven't seen the public sentiment on drugs, but I'd imagine most people probably would like most hard drugs to remain more illegal, or harder to access, than most "soft drugs". You can find this across most different things you'd poll people on. Healthcare, other forms of public infrastructure, including civic infrastructure, military funding, space research, every aspect of government.

This isn't to necessarily say that most people are moderates, but I think a very underrated aspect of democracy is the fact that people can choose not to vote if they feel like they're not informed enough on a concept, which will naturally select, if done correctly, for people who are more knowledgeable on a subject. Even the general public is capable of giving you a somewhat nuanced answer on many different political topics, that kind of breaks through two-party dynamics, and might even break through what are thought to be general consistent ideological positions.

None of this is to say that democracy isn't also about some level of compromise, but I think it's also up to the reasonable participants of a democracy to decide their level of compromise, what they're willing to accept and what they're not okay with. I think, you know, if your democracy was more on the side of my initial, joking answer, than on the side of all of what I've laid out, it would be kind of a shame were the whole system NOT sabotaged and taken down. In my view, at least. And, you know, providing something worse didn't sprout up in it's place.