The lack of open access academic work is incredibly frustrating. We're only guessing at the content of the article based on BBC's coverage. Consider this bit:

The lack of open access academic work is incredibly frustrating. We're only guessing at the content of the article based on BBC's coverage. Consider this bit: A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans…is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time… On the other hand[,] When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it. a) How much difference is there between "adopted about 45% of the time" and "generally do not get it?" That seems kind of important to the argument. b) I'm somewhat relieved to hear most groups never actually get their way. From what I remember of the Federalist Papers, gridlock was always the general idea. c) What policies are we talking about here? I feel one way when representatives overrule majorities that are trying to add accountability, but another way when majorities demand unconstitutional or unworkable policy changes. I'm really curious how many of the 1,779 policy issues inspire me towards majoritarianism. d) When are majorities and economic elites actually at odds? I'm not sure why, but it seems like some of the poorest people I know are the most supportive of tax relief for the rich. But really, at several income levels, I know both conservatives and liberals on various policy issues. The set of disagreements could tell us a lot about why one group's positions pass more often than the other. e) How often to policy implementations flip back and forth? Some tax cuts and educational policies just expired after a decade. Is that a win for people who fought to see them implemented? Or a win for people who opposed them? It's really a messy combination. There are landmark laws that stick around, but with most laws, there aren't clean victories on either side once you back up and see how they were amended or repealed over time. I'm sure the authors are very intelligent, so maybe they addressed all of these concerns in their paper. It's hard to know though when the default is gated, for-profit research.