I used to agree with you on this line of thinking, but over the past few years my thinking has been changing quite radically. What good is protections against

I used to agree with you on this line of thinking, but over the past few years my thinking has been changing quite radically. What good is protections against tyranny of the majority if it just results in tyranny of the minority? The majority will only play a rigged game for so long - as you are beginning to see with Democrats seriously discussing court packing should they win power. One party has gotten Presidents in twice over the past 20 years without winning the popular vote. Those two presidents who did not win a majority of support got to pick 4 Supreme Court justices, wildly swinging the ideology of the court in the process towards minority views. A Wyoming voter has vastly more power then a Californian voter in every federal election. When the Founders set up the Senate, Virginia was something like 15x more populous then the least populist state. California is 66x more populous then Wyoming today. In my opinion - power has shifted far too much to the minority. On issue after issue you can find things like gun control, climate change, healthcare, minimum wage, paid maternity leave with public support in the 60% plus range, yet nothing happens due to the tyranny of the minority (and a good dose of corruption). We need massive democratic reforms in this country if we want to be able to solve the problems of the coming century, and yes the minority needs to lose some of its protections. I don't think "but tyranny of the majority" holds up as valid argument against reforms given the context of the last 20+ years.