The article astutely distinguished between “the will of the majority” and “the will of the people”, which I think is important because there will always be some subset of "the people" that disagree with any policy.
(I suppose one could imagine trivial theoretical policies like "The government pledges not to nuke all of its own cities" which should have universal support from citizens, but this still might not be confirmable through polling data because of Lizardman's Constant.)
So yes, we might be able to say that democracy (if implemented well) allows the will of the majority to be represented most of the time, but the article's point still stands that a winning party or coalition must deliberately commit itself to enacting policies that are unpopular, when intuitively we would think "Why doesn't the party just drop those unpopular policies?".
This is perhaps not surprising, though, as, even considering real world politics in a simplistic one-dimensional way, we know that a left wing party needs to support some unpopular far-left policies if it wants to win the support of such voters, while also trying to appeal to moderates in order to achieve a majority. (Similarly right wing parties need to support some far-right policies to motivate such voters too).
With that observation made, the main thing the article really tells us is that this is an inherent result of majority government, and not specific to any particularly voting system.
(I suppose one could imagine trivial theoretical policies like "The government pledges not to nuke all of its own cities" which should have universal support from citizens, but this still might not be confirmable through polling data because of Lizardman's Constant.)
So yes, we might be able to say that democracy (if implemented well) allows the will of the majority to be represented most of the time, but the article's point still stands that a winning party or coalition must deliberately commit itself to enacting policies that are unpopular, when intuitively we would think "Why doesn't the party just drop those unpopular policies?".
This is perhaps not surprising, though, as, even considering real world politics in a simplistic one-dimensional way, we know that a left wing party needs to support some unpopular far-left policies if it wants to win the support of such voters, while also trying to appeal to moderates in order to achieve a majority. (Similarly right wing parties need to support some far-right policies to motivate such voters too).
With that observation made, the main thing the article really tells us is that this is an inherent result of majority government, and not specific to any particularly voting system.