Continuing the discussion from Curiosity – Roe vs. Wade Overturned:
One relevant idea is that when people are super motivated and care a ton, that can cause them to engage in activities (aggressive lobbying, pressure campaigns, donations, influencing judicial picks) that can be worth more in terms of setting policy than the votes of a ton of people with more moderate views.
Another thing worth thinking about is imagining what the policy outcome would be in a very democratic setting. Imagine, for instance, a direct popular vote on some issue, as in a referendum or ballot initiative. To the extent a way of deciding a policy departs from that approach, it’s somewhat less democratic and provides an opportunity for people who care more to exert greater influence than a bunch of votes. (To be clear, I’m not saying we should be deciding everything by direct popular vote or criticizing representative democracy per se. I think the Founding Fathers were rightly very wary of that sort of approach. But representative democracy has some issues too.)