You have a majority in two houses--sans filibuster--and a governor that agrees with them both and you get a law.
You can declare that democracy is only valid when it "bends towards" whatever our "justice" is or you can just say it is what it is. Democracy is a process and the outcome depends on the demos that has the kratos ('power over').
For important things, I like having at least a supermajority in favor. Squashes the 50%+1 idea, but means there's at least not a stochastic majority that prefers something. It's not "minority rule", it's "minority veto over rule by a simple majority"--the minority doesn't rule, it prevents being ruled over by a small difference in winners/losers.
As it is, that's Our Democracy and it's the kind of "democracy," minimal majority rules, that many yearn for. (Personally, having often been in the minority, I hate majoritarianism. A scant majority imposing something divisive and onerous on a scant minority is not "liberty", and our Constitution is set up to, among other things, "secure the blessings of liberty" to us and our progeny.)
Personally, I hate not having a "straight-party ticket" as an option. It was convenient. I could pull one lever, push one button, click one option, and all the races were filled in. Then I could review and and the few that I objected to without messing with the other 50-70 races. Now I have to do it by hand. On the other hand, too many just go in and say, "Corps is mother, corps is father" and on the basis of one or two prominent (or state) people vote all the way down the ballot--and often miss the issues at the bottom of most ballots I've seen.
= new reply since forum marked as read