I think I'd harken back to an older view of the conflict: large concentrations of wealth (the natural result of our economic system, unregulated) are in direct opposition to the principle of "one man, one vote."
The article hinted that the company was doing something malicious that on the voting day, "locals who had toiled on the issue for years noticed many newcomers", who eventually voted the idea down. It almost sound like those newcomers were brought in by the company to influence votes in its favor.
But in my experience with condo boards and other small democratic organizations, there are always a small but vocal group who tend to run the show, while the majority just carry on with their lives without paying too much attention to the local politics. That does not mean those people have no opinion on major issues, and their opinions tend to be revealed at those kind of major votes.
It sucks if you worked for years to get your ideas through, only to be voted down by the majority. But is this really a failure of democracy?
America was founded on a messy system where not everyone got what they wanted. It was always a compromise.
However, this messy system did bring us out of slavery into the modern era. Now though one of the last abominations of this messy system is causing most of the issues in the republic. I wonder why the author does not touch the subject of "Electoral College".
The "Electoral College" elected both "George Bush" and "Trump" subverting the will of the majority. The first president led us into an illegal war that enriched his corporate buddies. The second one will be judged by history.
In my opinion, until we get rid of the "Electoral College" America will never be a true democracy.
A big example of those is not a nation but rather EU parliament. Citizens of the smallest country count twice as much influence as the biggest country, and the reason is rather obvious to keep those members states interested to be part of the union even if the voting power is going to be minuscule compared to the big countries. Even so the sell is a tough one.
Judicial review is simply the concrete manifestation of two things express in the Constitution:
(1) the judicial power regarding cases and controversies arising under the Constitution, laws, etc., and
(2) The Constitution’s express limits on what laws Congress has the power to pass.
It's anti-democratic in the sense that Constitutionally-limited government is itself anti-democratic, in that the electre representatives of the people are denied the unlimited power they would have in a parliamentary supremacy model, but not in any other sense.